Post by Fenris on Feb 14, 2008 19:04:57 GMT -5
While we were talking about Extended SR mechanics, I started thinking about all the ways you can twist SRs.
As some of you already know, I am looking at building a new world in a Dark Ages style campaign, that is designed to be "realistic" yet fantastical. I'm mostly inspired by the Harryhausen Sinbad movies I just bought.
Now, I know the following idea isn't something the rest of you would want to do, but it feels very right in my own campaign idea. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Okay, here's the thought. I'm turning SRs on their ear!
It occured to me that the basic idea of the Saving Roll is built around the First Level Saving Roll. Saving Rolls above first level are the same as first level saving rolls, but with a negative modifier.
For example, a character with a DEX 17 attempts a L1SR. He must roll a 3 or better (ignoring the minimum 5 rule for the moment). If he must make a L3SR, he must roll 13 or better; in other words, 10 points higher.
That is the same as a character with a DEX 7 needing to make a L1SR! And, of course, a DEX 7 is just a DEX 17 minus 10; in other words, 10 points lower.
Is everybody seeing where this is going yet?
I am thinking about having only ONE Save Level... what was called a L1SR would now just be called a Saving Roll. Modifiers that increase difficulty would be applied to the attribute directly (or, optionally, to the die roll, but I prefer the attribute).
Thus, if I'm GMing and a game requires my PC with a LK 23 to make a 4th level SR, I would instead say, "Make a Save at -15." His LK would be 8 for the purposes of making this roll. Either way, he still has to roll a 12 for success. The roll required for success does not change; only the system of determination.
For the curious, the equation for this system would be (Level x 5) - 5.
This doesn't change anything in terms of gameplay. Doubles still add and roll over, the minimum 5 rule still stands.
I always liked using 2d10 for SRs. Even though I'd start with 2d6, if I found I still preferred 2d10, it would work the same way as it does normally.
So why do it?
Well, first, it fits the "realistic yet fantastical" genre I'm attempting.
Second, it's easy to understand if I'm introducing someone new to the game.
Third, and most importantly, it keeps the attribute numbers down to "normal human" levels even when the characters have increased in level a bit. Players with extreme attributes will find that those benefits are negated by difficulty modifiers. (The high level attributes are required to negotiate higher difficulty actions, e.g. a PC with an attribute of 12 making a roll at -15 starts with a -3 to his die roll! But either way, he still needs to roll a 23 to succeed). (If I'm doing a lot of that kind of stuff, the 2d10s might be a good idea after all, but that can't be known at this stage... depending on how difficult a -15 action is, it might make more sense to find ways to improve your chances, rather than just roll bigger dice).
Fourth, there are more variations possible when dealing with newbies. Modifiers aren't limited to multiples of 5.
Like I said, I know this is specific to me and to my world setting (and this world setting in particular... I doubt I would use this in my "default" Lost Worlds game, because the higher numbers and wild target numbers are a good fit for the genre). I'm not suggesting T&T be changed to this method of doing things, and I know that nobody else here would be interested in trying this. But I really like the sound of it, and I'd like some feedback based on player and GM experience.
Along the way, additional needs can be hammered out (extended SR rules, Experience Point Awards, etc). The Take 10/20 variant we were discussing on the other thread would work out quite well, for example. A Save made at -10 with the PC taking extra time (+10) would end up with a net modifier of 0.
So what have ya got, y'all?
As some of you already know, I am looking at building a new world in a Dark Ages style campaign, that is designed to be "realistic" yet fantastical. I'm mostly inspired by the Harryhausen Sinbad movies I just bought.
Now, I know the following idea isn't something the rest of you would want to do, but it feels very right in my own campaign idea. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Okay, here's the thought. I'm turning SRs on their ear!
It occured to me that the basic idea of the Saving Roll is built around the First Level Saving Roll. Saving Rolls above first level are the same as first level saving rolls, but with a negative modifier.
For example, a character with a DEX 17 attempts a L1SR. He must roll a 3 or better (ignoring the minimum 5 rule for the moment). If he must make a L3SR, he must roll 13 or better; in other words, 10 points higher.
That is the same as a character with a DEX 7 needing to make a L1SR! And, of course, a DEX 7 is just a DEX 17 minus 10; in other words, 10 points lower.
Is everybody seeing where this is going yet?
I am thinking about having only ONE Save Level... what was called a L1SR would now just be called a Saving Roll. Modifiers that increase difficulty would be applied to the attribute directly (or, optionally, to the die roll, but I prefer the attribute).
Thus, if I'm GMing and a game requires my PC with a LK 23 to make a 4th level SR, I would instead say, "Make a Save at -15." His LK would be 8 for the purposes of making this roll. Either way, he still has to roll a 12 for success. The roll required for success does not change; only the system of determination.
For the curious, the equation for this system would be (Level x 5) - 5.
This doesn't change anything in terms of gameplay. Doubles still add and roll over, the minimum 5 rule still stands.
I always liked using 2d10 for SRs. Even though I'd start with 2d6, if I found I still preferred 2d10, it would work the same way as it does normally.
So why do it?
Well, first, it fits the "realistic yet fantastical" genre I'm attempting.
Second, it's easy to understand if I'm introducing someone new to the game.
Third, and most importantly, it keeps the attribute numbers down to "normal human" levels even when the characters have increased in level a bit. Players with extreme attributes will find that those benefits are negated by difficulty modifiers. (The high level attributes are required to negotiate higher difficulty actions, e.g. a PC with an attribute of 12 making a roll at -15 starts with a -3 to his die roll! But either way, he still needs to roll a 23 to succeed). (If I'm doing a lot of that kind of stuff, the 2d10s might be a good idea after all, but that can't be known at this stage... depending on how difficult a -15 action is, it might make more sense to find ways to improve your chances, rather than just roll bigger dice).
Fourth, there are more variations possible when dealing with newbies. Modifiers aren't limited to multiples of 5.
Like I said, I know this is specific to me and to my world setting (and this world setting in particular... I doubt I would use this in my "default" Lost Worlds game, because the higher numbers and wild target numbers are a good fit for the genre). I'm not suggesting T&T be changed to this method of doing things, and I know that nobody else here would be interested in trying this. But I really like the sound of it, and I'd like some feedback based on player and GM experience.
Along the way, additional needs can be hammered out (extended SR rules, Experience Point Awards, etc). The Take 10/20 variant we were discussing on the other thread would work out quite well, for example. A Save made at -10 with the PC taking extra time (+10) would end up with a net modifier of 0.
So what have ya got, y'all?
(I've noticed that rules variants that keep the changes minimal seem to fare better, both in my own games and in others; change it up all you want, in a month you'll be playing "by the book" again).