I have always been irritated by the fact that high level skills doesn't mean increaced chance of a critical sucess (as a percentile of ML).A character with Skill mastery level (SML) 110 has 19% chance of a critical. A character with SML 80 has a 16% chance of a critical. The difference is very small. Wouldn't it be natural to add extra possibilities for critical at high SML.

One could for instance say that:

SML 0-90 (As per the rules of today) Maximum 18% chance of a critical
SML91-100 (CS on a 0,1 and 5) 24%-29% chance chance of a critical
SML101-110 (CS on a 0,1,2 and 5) 39% chance chance of a critical
SML111-120 (CS on a 0,1,2,3 and 5) 49% chance chance of a critical
SML 121+ (CS on a 0,1,2,3,4 and 5) 59% chance chance of a critical

One could add increased chance for critical failure at low levels for instance:
SML 0-10 (CF on a 0,1,2,3 and 5)
SML11-20 (CF on a 0,1,2 and 5)
SML21-30 (CF on a 0,1 and 5)
SML 31+ (CF as per the rules of today)

What do you think ? Has anyone tried something like this?

I haven't tried it. IMO, a 1 on 5 chance of a critical result is plenty, but everyone has different tastes.

My first thought is that the modification would be fairly harmless at the upper end, but unworkable at the lower end. Beginners would suffer CF on practically every roll.

One thing that might mitigate that is allowing a ML bonus for taking extra time for some skills. Beginners are more likely, IMO, to take longer to do things than they are to critically fail at everything they attempt. Obviously, this doesn't work with all skills. I think you'd have to study the categories (Physical, Communication, Combat, Language, and Craft/Lore) to see where the flaws were, and perhaps tailor the results a bit.

Only in 50% of the cases. But isn't that what happens in real life ?

This works well, We've been using it for years:

Any success that makes the die roll by 100 is promoted 1 success level. (Any failure failed by 100 is demoted 1 success level).

If a character has 119 EML and they roll 19 or less on the die the result is one better (roll 19 = CS roll 10=Double Critical Success -- but 20 is just a CS and 21 is a MS ). 96-99 remains MF and 00 remains CF - unless the EML is over 200 - then they are promoted by 1 if die roll is made by 100.


For negative EMLs the same 01-05 remain auto sucess until EML is worse than -95. But at -10 EML any roll of 96-99 is failed by 100 becomes CF and 00 becomes a Double CF.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Another game I play from time to time has the chance of a crit equal to 1/10 of your EML, so if you have an EML of 70, a result of 01-07 is CS, 08-70 is MS, 71-97 is MF and 97-00 is CF. Works well in that game at least.

Edit: I should say that also if you don't have at least an EML of 10, you can't get a crit, and likewise if you have an EML of 91 or more, you can't fumble. In that game the minimum EML is 01 maximum is 99. So if you have an EML if 120 for some reason, your chance of a crit is 01-12, the normal succees chance is 13-99 and your chance of a miss is 00.

Edit2: Another game I play makes you roll a second roll if you get 01-05 and if that roll is also a success then it is a crit. The same goes for 96-00, if your second roll is also a miss you fumble. This game uses a d20 and 1 is always a success and 20 is always a miss.

_________________
"Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur" - Tacitus
Fenhorn's Hârnpage

No, not as I define "Critical Failure," anyway.

I guess I should ask, are you envisioning this as applying to combat MLs, or any skill? IMO, for most (non-combat) skills, the difference in a beginner and an expert has more to do with time and quality, rather than the odds of some catastrophic result.

It was combat that got me thinking. There are to little difference between best fighters in the kingdom and those at ML 90. I wanted the best to be able to defeat the second best 8 out of 10 rather than 6 out of 10.

But as far as fumble is concerned perhaps 50% is to harsh. Perhaps it is better to start at 40%. However a character that has less than 10 in a skill must have had low stats given that no skill open at less than SB1. Low stats implies little talent and thus a higher chance at CF.

I have problems with the regularity of critical failures/successes...but not in critical game situations which make it really fun!!!

What I had toyed with for non critical/long term skill uses was something like an index factor to indicate general outcomes; and then added to with a roll if you so wish (which would result in the more skillful taking risks IMHO anywhoo...). So for example, if a weaponcrafter is making stuff over a year....

index:
1 Tend to the fire boy. Output stonger muscles.
2 Try this horseshoe with supervision. Output a couple of personal metal items and few shoody for sale.
3 Producing apprentice/poor independent. Output of poor quality volume low to medium dependent on forge access.
4 Time to be finding your own forge/jobbing independant. Ouput of poor quality volume dependent on forge access. Could press for independence.
5 If an apprentice still, being taken advantage of. Average independent. Output occasional good work and steady volume.
6 Master/Good independent. Output high volume or good quality; occasional very good piece
7 In demand. Output high and good quality. Occasional very good pieces.
8 In demand; need to specialise, expand, or relax. Output very good and high volume; or excellent and average volume. Occassional excellent pieces otherwise.
9 Renowned. Lords are sniffing about. Output: Cannot keep up with demand. Very good and excellent work which buyers pay over odds for. Possibly a 'perfect' piece.
10+ Famous. Life gets political. Output excellent and high volume if well supported by apprentices. Occasional perfect pieces.

(Cash no. could be worked out as percentage of average wage)

So you would not get a novice punching above weight, or a master producing duds for a year The extra roll could be used for a 'special' item (Phew you made that sword for the violent mercenary really well! etc)...or to risk going up/down a band (or two?).

I first thought of this whilst climbing....once you reach a certain level you can climb pretty much anything at and below that grade...and people 2 grades below just cannot, however hard they try.

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

I like the idea of the four levels of success and failure that Harnmaster uses, but the implementation of those bugs me to no end, and is a prime reason it'll never be a favored system for me. I'd much rather have seen a simple <11 = CF, 11-50 = MF, 51-90= MS, >90 = CS type thing (adjust numbers as needed).

Except for combat where you'd have to redraw the tables, have you considered using the Special Success/Failure which is defined as one-half the EML? You have some leeway in defining the results and might be what you're looking for.

80EML:
MF=80+; SF=90+; CF=80, 85, 90...
MS=>80; SS=>40; CS=05, 10, 15...

_________________
Cheers, Konnel
KoDa RPG Games Site
Featured: Kèthîra ● Tékumel ● Mystara ● Greyhawk ● Lankhmar ● Kamakura.

I have considered doing that but as you say it would requires redesigning the table for combat and that would add complexity. I would rather have a system that I am not completely happy about than a complex one.

I had expanded the combat tables to accomodate SS/SF but have since dropped the idea in favor a system that suits me better. In practice, howver, SS was the existing CS results with the new CS almost always adding impact/DTA. Though your system of adding more crit numbers on the ones die would work well enough as long as players can keep it straight, and you could easily create a crib sheet for that. I personally don't even use dice these days- I use an ios app with which I program custom 'dice' to simply return the degree of success or failure based on the skill index, and I could therefore easily increase the frequency of crits. To recommend that, however, would anticipate all your Players using dice macros or you rolling for everyone.

A longstanding method I've used is to divide all ML by 5 and roll a d20. My crits were always based on 20% - that is with an adjusted EML of ten a 1-2 is a CS while 19-20 is CF. Above adjusted EML OF 15 and CF is no longer possible (although 20 always fails even if adj EML goes above 20). Similar for the lower adj EML and CS. I could easily manipulate the frequency as well. I mention this only by way of illustrating undistributed crits since I feel you won' care much for this method.

Another possibility is basing the crit frequency on the SI and not the EML. Since the SI will generally be greater than EML (taking into account the scale). I can think of several methods but they'd each be best implemented using software (either virtual tabletop or dice app).

_________________
Cheers, Konnel
KoDa RPG Games Site
Featured: Kèthîra ● Tékumel ● Mystara ● Greyhawk ● Lankhmar ● Kamakura.

One solution would be to give everyone at Critical Sucess number based on SI. For instance CS_NUMBER= SI - 6 with a minimum result of 0. Every time the last digit of your roll was equal to or less than the CS-Number you scored a CS. CF could be handled the same way CF-NUMBER=SI+5 with a maximum result of 9. Every time the last digit of your roll was equal to or higher than the CF-Number you scored a CF.

Or CS could be based on STAR rating. One star= CS on 0 and 1, Two stars=CS on 0,1 and 2 and so on.

Comparing the system of making by 100 = +1 level of success to making an additional number a critical it would seem that giving an additional number an increased success is roughly equal to the effect of +10EML?

assuming EML 100 making 0,5 and 1's critical would add 10 CS to the chances
with EML 100 with making by 100 +1 LOS that is roughly the effect of +10 EML (8 MS ->CS and 2 CS-> double crits)

assuming EML 80 I'm not sure what the effect of the expanded crit there is but obviously +10 EML has the same effect regardless of the initial EML.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)