Topic: Thursday's Topic.... How Critical are Critical Charts?

[jdale]

Makes me think of critical dice...  one side is bleeding, one side is hits, one side is stun, etc...  number of dice rolled depends on how good the hit was. Custom d6 is not too pricey, could just use the familiar symbols from the crit charts....

[yammahoper]

If each step of success over initial number needed to indicate a crit results in increased wounding rather than increased critical severity (A-E), my mace would crit on a 92, then cause additional wound at 112, then additional wound at 132, etc.  An attack of 140 would mean three wound options rather than a C crit, and we don't want the damage to automatically be a progression of the same (first you cause bleeding, then bone break, etc).  So, our new critical tables for s/p/k could be six columns: Bleeding/Stun/Bone-tendon/Organ/Muscle/Special.  Each column has 19 results.  We know the wound will roll on three columns, the question is how to determine which column.

Thinking caps on. 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I like the dice idea... but it being Rolemaster d10's please

Have a pack with multiples of 10 dice of the same colour... each colour represents a type of critical... slash, blunt, piercing or elemental... etc
(Though in theory if you don't use the symbols and use a chart like I use in the example, any 1d10 will do. )

Then when you get a "a" you roll two dice, "b" four... "c" six... "d" eight.. "e" ten....

The results on the dice favour certain critical results dependant on the weapon type.

e.g. Lets say Blunt/Crush

1= +0 for the 1st result, +5 hits for each result thereafter
2= +10 hits
3-4= 2 round Stun
5 = 1 round Stun (No parry)
6-7 = Temp Penalty (-10 for 1 round) (two results would be -20 for 2 rounds...etc)
8-9 Injury Penalty (-10 per result 1-2 results =Minor, 3-4 Medium, 5+ Serious
10 =Special Penalty/Effect dice*

* Reroll this dice and then add an additional dice result of another weapon type.

Example: getting a "b" critical the player rolls four d10, getting results of 1,2,3,4: This results in +10 damage and 4 rounds of Stun.

The "10" result is a way to get the really bad critical results.

[yammahoper]

Current crit tables have 19 results and 2d10 generates 19 results (no 1's).

Definitely d10 or d100.

An * could be placed on most results 8 or higher.  Three * indicates a crippling injury, four a severed limb, five instant death, or some such combination.

I would like to keep the number of die rolled to five maximum, or it gets cumbersome imo.  Of course, if one d10 determines column/injury type while the other severity, I could indeed see 10 dice used.

[Cory Magel]

Variable effects with a progressive damage system...so, what if the higher attack results indicate more damage but the type of damage is determined randomly?
An elegant mechanic for this...

The existing RM2 through RMFRP crit tables. 

Makes me think of critical dice...  one side is bleeding, one side is hits, one side is stun, etc...  number of dice rolled depends on how good the hit was. Custom d6 is not too pricey, could just use the familiar symbols from the crit charts....

Nooo! Please, for the love of all that is holy, no more rolls...

[VladD]

I have been brooding on making attacks directly on the critical table. I also want to make it an electronic random affair, so an attack would consist of a resulting roll with characteristics of the weapon (percentage of Slash Krush, Puncture, effectiveness against AT, location) generating a random critical on the spot. Attack types, damage descriptions and the attack roll are classified to prevent maces from generating a slash description and low rolls not cutting off heads, etc.

Since it is all electronic, it can be integrated in the various software programs or in a stand alone app or program to speed the game along and increase enjoyment.
I intend to make the descriptions and specific damage realistic but also as varied and random as I can make them without losing consistency.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I would like to keep the number of die rolled to five maximum, or it gets cumbersome imo.  Of course, if one d10 determines column/injury type while the other severity, I could indeed see 10 dice used.

For a easily remembered system I agree 1-5 dice (representing A-E respectively) would be easier.. I had initially thought that.. not sure why I changed it. Perhaps I was trying to replicate the lethality of the current "E" critical (roughly 15%) ... but thinking upon it, using 1-5 dice and having the "10" result explode (i.e. reroll and add another dice) means the chance of rolling multiple "10s" increases massively with the greater number of dice.

I wasn't too bothered about the exact descriptive effects of the result at the time I wrote the example... I'd suggest that if you get more than 5 results the same that should generally constitute a "instant kill/decapitation/K.O" result.

[Cory Magel]

I have been brooding on making attacks directly on the critical table.

I really think that RM could VERY easily combine the attack and critical and most people wouldn't even know it had been done if someone was just reading off the result to them (without them seeing the table).  The only issue I see is, if in print, you'd need at least two page tables (maybe more).  For an electronic method?  I think it would work absolutely perfectly.

[yammahoper]

For me, the attractiveness of a random wound matrix is it could break the static nature of the current critical tables.  I do not mind the loss of color descriptions as I provide my own (though in the rules describing such a matrix function colorful descriptions by the GM should be stressed).

A single wound that results in  bleedcould be rolled on the bleed column at -4 with 2d10 or -20 with d100.  two wound results that both end on the bleed column could be rolled t -2/-10, 3 results at +/- 0, etc, similar to MERP.  The penalties could be significantly larger if we have only one bleed column, but if we generate a table for bleed/stun/bone/organ/muscle for one wound result (an A crit) and another for two, then three, etc, no mods are needed.  How many tables do we want?

Again, the primary advantage of such a change is increased varability while maintaining the integrity of a critical system. Since RMU is not going to innovate a new set of mechanics, I want to for myself and my game.  As I pointed out before, many brains are better than mine alone.

[Cory Magel]

I'm good with critical charts having set effects, but ones that vary (like all the pre-RMU ones) rather than just ramp up (like the RMU ones).  Our group has been playing RM for 25+ years and we've never had an issue with them.  It does help if you do what you do though yammahoper, that is, just use the effects and provide your own description that follows the spirit of the critical.

[yammahoper]

One thing that is stirring around in my mind.  Eliminate Armor rules as we know them and have them modify critical damage instead.  I mean modify specific types of critical damage by modifying damage rolls on the critical tables/Matrix.

This simplifies armor a bit.  Each AT would have a +/- rating versus each damage type applied against the actual critical rolls.  No Armor may be a default 20 or 25 for s/p/k.  Being critted with no armor on hurts. 

Of course, with all the new possible rules and mods from weapons and spells, I sense an arms race may develop.  With elemental crits, the list of mods for each AT keeps getting longer (s/p/k/strikes/sweeps-grapple/electric/heat/cold/impact/unbalance/brawling...jimminey cricket).

[Thom @ ICE]

Again... people are peeking at my notes.

[Warl]

I don't see where it matters whether the order of crits is linear or random.. effectively each result should have the same 5 chance of attaining it regardless of where it is on the chart, and a Progressive crit chart is easier to design than a random one.

[Cory Magel]

...and have them modify critical damage instead.  I mean modify specific types of critical damage by modifying damage rolls on the critical tables/Matrix.

This is somewhat how MERP handled it.

I don't see where it matters whether the order of crits is linear or random.. effectively each result should have the same 5 chance of attaining it regardless of where it is on the chart, and a Progressive crit chart is easier to design than a random one.

For me it matters a lot.  I don't want...
+1 Hit
+1 Hit and 1 Bleed
+1 Hit, 1 Bleed, and 1 Stun
+2 Hits, 1 Bleed, and 1 Stun
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, and 1 Stun
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, and 2 Stun
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, 2 Stun, and -10
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, 2 Stun, and -20
...and so on.

What I want is...
+1 Hit
+ 2 Hits
1 Bleed
+1 Hit and 1 Bleed
1 Stun
+3 Hits and 1 Stun
+5 Hits and 2 Bleed
1 Stun and 1 Bleed
... and so on.

I don't want an obvious and 100% predicable progression, but I do want a progression of seriousness that varies in it's exact nature.  A predictable progression is not more difficult than a varied progression so long as you have predefined values for the various effects.  What's hard is creating the color text and unless you want REALLY freaking boring color text it's still going to be just as hard to make the charts.  For someone who makes up their own descriptions the predicable progression works only slightly better imo... because you're still describing a predicable mechanical effect even if you change up the 'why'.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but my values when writing the critical tables was something like this...

1 Hit = 1 Point
1 Stun = 2 Points
1 Stun must Parry = 3 Points
1 Bleed = 3 Points
-5 penalty = 4 Points
1 Stun no Parry = 5 Points

There's other stuff, like disarming a weapon, breaking a shield, taking out a limb, death in x rounds to instant death, etc.  But you get the idea.  You assign a point value to each effect and then each critical has a point value as you move up the chart.  It makes the mechanics of it very simple... it's the color text that bogs you down.

[Witchking20k]

I have always thought Armor should be applied after the hit.  In one of my previous posts on this thread (I think) I stated that I liked how the mechanic for HARP was used - but the Armor was lumped into DB instead of being a separate modifier.  It just makes so much sense for it to be applied after the hit.  You should always get your Armor "bonus" even when surprised or downed etc.  I realize that the attack table take this into consideration- but, if the idea is to reduce the number of attack table or at least reduce them then removing ATs is the simplest way to go.

[Warl]

I have always thought Armor should be applied after the hit.  In one of my previous posts on this thread (I think) I stated that I liked how the mechanic for HARP was used - but the Armor was lumped into DB instead of being a separate modifier.  It just makes so much sense for it to be applied after the hit.  You should always get your Armor "bonus" even when surprised or downed etc.  I realize that the attack table take this into consideration- but, if the idea is to reduce the number of attack table or at least reduce them then removing ATs is the simplest way to go.

Agreed, which is what my personal system is trying to emulate.