 February 2, 2008 - 12:50pm | Refer to: SECTOR 1: ABILITIES. In the 25th Anniversary Edition Rulebook, when analyzing the use of abilities to assist in skills, I couldn't help but think that skills are not as much based on one's ability, but on their ability's modification of their training. I think optional modifiers is the best resolution. Note that I say "optional". It's not something that would be hard coded, but offered as an option. I wanted to find out what the community thinks of an option of using modifiers to skills based on one's ability scores. In other words, we rely on the original skill scores as set out in AD, but use modifiers based on their abilities to enhance those skills. An ability-based modifier might look like this: 10 = -30 20 = -20 30 = -10 40 = 0 50 = +5 60 = +10 70 = +15 80 = +20 90 = +25 100 = +30 Ranged weapon skills wouldn't get the modifier, but all other skills would. Also, regarding weapons skills where STR would have an influence, instead of choosing between using DEX and STR, they use DEX as the base, like other weapons skills, but use STR for the modifier. So Martial arts would look like: Lvl x 10 + DEX + STR Mod = ____. A skill like Computers: Interface or Weapons: Demolitions would look like Lvl x 10 + 30% + INT Mod. In fact, this does not really preclude the use of abilities as the base for base skill percentages if one still wanted to use those in conjunction with the ability modifiers. Let me know what you think. |
 February 2, 2008 - 2:10pm | I think having modifiers based on the scores is fine, though I would tweak the chart you have above a bit to bring the +0 down to where the "average" is for a non-heroic character (in other words, the "absolute" average, as opposed to "the average of a PC's score") Perhaps lower the "angle" a bit so that it tops out where you have it, at +30 for a score of 100. This would mean bonuses that are not multiples of 5, though. I also don't quite like how the penalties increase by 10 per step, but the bonuses only increase by 5 per step. Seems a bit unnecessarily harsh. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
 February 2, 2008 - 3:01pm | Reminds me too much of 2nd Ed AD&D. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
 February 2, 2008 - 3:44pm | I agree with Rum Rogue. I almost stopped playing D&D when the 2nd ED. came out and that was what most people wanted to use because they all spent the money on the books. Half the ability score plus the skill level works fine. Any edge or short fall a character has already comes from the base character stat. If your STR is 75 as a human, the edge is there. If your character has a INT of 30, that already as issues to work out. This character does not need a -10 modifier because he is already pouring mayo into the toaster. Sergeant |
February 2, 2008 - 3:57pm | Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of 3.5. Also, the half ability score for skills will only be an option in the book, like this one, not hard coded. I'm going to retain the original skill scores for the book, and provide options. It works for 3.5 and will still appear in 4e. Why wouldn't it work for this? |
February 2, 2008 - 4:00pm | By the way, I'm not trying to turn the game into D&D with this offering. I just think it's a more realistic and effective offering. |
February 2, 2008 - 4:06pm | I am not counting the modifiers out. I would have to try use them before I would do that. You stated these were optional and I love options. I said before--Zeb's guide is a buffet of options. Don't take my reference of 2nd ED D&D to seriously. I do still have the firast edition hardbacks. Sergeant |
February 2, 2008 - 4:37pm | If anyone has any tweaks for the charts, feel free to give your ideas about how such a chart should be represented. What do you all see as the average for non-heroic characters in the stats? |
February 2, 2008 - 7:16pm | By the way, I'm looking to hear pros and cons on this. If I give a good argument, it will be because I'm expecting the same effort to prove points on both sides. I want to know how much people care on either side. So please don't take any strong arguments on either side to be offensive or to be unfair demands. Please make no insistances that anyone should take your side (I speak to everyone). I intend for this to be a lively discussion without anyone getting offended. If there are more reasons against this (which I am looking for both positive and negative arguments), I'd like to see specific reasons. That is, just because something is associated with something else that failed, it isn't proof that it was the cause or contributed anything at all. What's needed is information that shows that it does or doesn't help. For instance, I provided an example of how a similar mechanic has been used in a game through many iterations, showing that it contributed nothing to the demise of the game. This is proof that it has been widely accepted and used. That, of course, didn't prove how useful it really is, if at all. It just shows that it's not disruptive. However, its continual use through these iterations does provide circumstantial evidence that it may be useful. Here are the facts that I can say: 1) The original hard percentages of skills to date have proven to be unsatisfying to the majority of players. 2) The ability scores are virtually useless except for determining IM and PS (which are similar themselves to the modifiers that I'm proposing). When ability scores are used for unskilled checks as suggested in the original rules, they surpass hard percentage skill checks, making skills meaningless. 3) Using half abilities for skills produces effects that are sometimes too powerful, and sometimes too weak. Of course, points 1 through 3 support using half ability scores as much as modifiers, but number two points to how PS and IM are similar to the modifiers, suggesting an opportunity to provide universal modifiers, the way they do in 3.5/4e. In that system they use the DEX modifier for the IM, and they use the STR modifier for the PS. We can do the same thing here. Regarding the average for non-heroic characters being lower, you have to remember that all the skills and everything represent a unilateral advancement above non-heroic NPC's. The average for the abilities is 45. When you put 45 at 0 modifier, because of the unilateral advancement among all skills vs. non-heroic NPC's, 0 is still going to be like +10 to non-heroic NPC's. By making 35 at -10, you're bring all that advancement down to the non-heroic level, because that modifier is going to be applied unilaterally. But if you make 35 at 0, there will be no unilateral reduction, and they'll still be heroic in all their skills that don't call upon their abilities. |
February 2, 2008 - 9:03pm | Hey, Sorry my first post was so short. I ran out of time with it. Corjay, I like the idea and your reasons for it. Looks like you have put some thought into it, so once you refine it it will make a good option. I tried something close to this one time with my old group. It just seemed like everytime they rolled the dice, they spent more time trying to figure out which bonus went where. Which is what my 2E D&D group did many years befor. 1) The original hard percentages of skills to date have proven to be unsatisfying to the majority of players. one reason why SF2K was put together. 2)
The ability scores are virtually useless except for determining IM and
PS (which are similar themselves to the modifiers that I'm proposing).
When ability scores are used for unskilled checks as suggested in the
original rules, they surpass hard percentage skill checks, making
skills meaningless. That is why I like the 1/2 ability score modifier. Depending on the situation I will throw in a -10% modifier. I think the IM is fine. I do agree that PS could be improved. 3) Using half abilities for skills produces effects that are sometimes too powerful, and sometimes too weak. Sometimes its too powerful, but, my experiences tend to show that the player has put more skill points into one or two stats and the skill levels suck. If its too weak, then gm intervention/ingenuity needs to kick in, or the players needs to improve current skills and pick up some new ones. In that system they use the DEX modifier for the IM, and they use the STR modifier for the PS. We can do the same thing here. PS is based off of STR. No change there other than what your new modifier chart comes up with. IM is based off of RS. I agree with that because of the way DEX and RS are defined: Dexterity. A character's Dexterity score determines his base chance to hit in combat. It also is his percent chance to sense things by touch, throw or catch an object, keep his balance, jump into a moving vehicle or perform delicate actions like cutting a wire without touching any surrounding wires. Reaction Speed. A character's Reaction Speed score is his percent chance to react quickly, to avoid falling rocks, to catch something he knocked over before it hits the floor, to jump away from a skimmer that is racing toward him, to grab an animal or to dive through a door before it slams shut. Anyway, I have lost my train of thoght again. So I hope this adds to my previous post, instead of just making it look like a random rude comment. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
February 3, 2008 - 3:12pm | What I meant by "doing the same thing here" is applying the modifiers I proposed to those two scores. I suppose it was an incomplete statement or train of thought. I didn't mean that DEX should govern IM. I think RS should govern IM as it does. I just mean that the modifiers should be calculated the same across the board. What made 2nd Edition AD&D so cumbersome was that nothing was standardized. "Ability Adjustments" (ability modifiers), Initiative Modifiers, and many other things were calculated on a case-by-case basis, which is why you always had to look up the adjustment. Such is not the case anymore with 3.5/4e. Some things ran off the ability score, while other things ran off the ability adjustment. Now you know how all the ability adjustments are calculated and only the ability adjustment is used, not the ability, so you don't have to think about it. You just look at your sheet and it's right there. Of course, they complicate the sheet in my eyes, by adding in all the calculation stuff, but it is fairly easy in that regard. My point being, you all are bringing in 2e to the discussion, when what I'm using for a base is 3.5/4e, because what I'm proposing is a standardized ability modifier. Therefore 2e doesn't apply. |
February 4, 2008 - 12:03am | Since we have the room, and the following modifiers still rely upon the Ability score's gradual adjustments (making the ability score useful), I propose the following:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
February 4, 2008 - 12:22am | Alright, I made an Ability Base Modifiers page with the modifiers I made below, and shows how the IM and PS can be treated by using the STR and RS scores. Option: Ability Base Modifiers Let me know what you think. |
February 4, 2008 - 7:30am | You have the zero set much too high. The average Ability Score for a PC is going cluster around 45, this is true, but the vast majority of the universe will probably have an average closer to 35. PCs are heroes, not average folks. I would center the zero-marker at 35, and for each 10 points beneath 35, increase the penalty by 5. It would look a bit like this: 0: Automatic failure 1-10: -15 10-20: -10 20-30: -5 30-40: 0 40-50: +5 50-60: +10 60-70: +15 70-80: +20 80-90: +35 90-100: +30 This lowers the bonuses a bit, yes, but still keeps Ability Scores contributing to the skill total in a uniform way as well as not unfairly penalizing non-heroic/non-PC characters for having non-heroic/non-PC Ability Score levels. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 4, 2008 - 7:45am | Wanted to pipe in on a comment about game balancing and heroism. I like the direction Corvus is going, PC's should be 1. above average and 2. semi-heroic at the start. In a conversation with a good friend he pointed out what drew him to the old d6 SW Role Playing Game was the fact PC's were already heroic and legendary and could quite possible change the course of the galaxy. Star Frontiers (AFAIK) is for the above average that want to cut their teeth on high-adventure and working hard to become heroic. |
February 4, 2008 - 8:35am | Part of the reason I went in +5 steps and segments of 10 is based on d20 and the relation of the percentile mechanic to the 1-20 mechanic. Every +1 on a d20 is 5%, which is a flat +5 in Star Frontiers. In d20, the modifier increases by +1 for every 2 points above 10, which translates to a +5 for every 10 points above the low end of "average", or 30 (I need to redo the scale to read 0, 1-9, 10-19, etc.). Remember that d20 heroic scores are rolled with 4d6 drop-lowest, which skews things a bit higher than the 10-11 true-average the modifiers are built on. Since SF is a straight roll, the "true average" needs to be a bit lower, hence 30-39. Here's the modified table. If you don't like d20, ignore my reasoning and just trust the table: 0: Auto failure 1-9: -15 10-19: -10 20-29: -5 30-39: +0 40-49: +5 50-59: +10 60-69: +15 70-79: +20 80-89: +25 90-99: +30 100: +35 This can, of course, be infinitely scaled upward, with every 10 points adding +5 to the bonus. For those of you who like formulae, the formula for computing your bonus is: [(Ability Score - 30) / 10, round down] * 5 If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 4, 2008 - 12:45pm | Putting 45 at +5 makes 45 MORE heroic. You have to remember that all the skills are set to make the character heroic. Therefore, they would need a penalty at 35 (rest of the universe) to bring down those skills to a non-heroic level. |
February 4, 2008 - 8:42pm | Putting 45 at +5 makes 45 MORE heroic. You have to remember that all the skills are set to make the character heroic. Therefore, they would need a penalty at 35 (rest of the universe) to bring down those skills to a non-heroic level. I understand what you're saying, but I do not agree with it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, I think. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 4, 2008 - 10:15pm | This thread is meant for debate. I hope I haven't put a brick wall in front of you. If you have a counter argument, I'd like to hear it. Also, on the matter that I put it in the AER, it is a placeholding. If it is preferred by the majority, then it won't appear as is, or I may even delete the page. It's presence in AER in no way indicates permanence. I put these things before the community because I don't want to produce things that only I will use. I want most everyone to be on board (I can't please everyone, but I can make the effort). |
February 5, 2008 - 7:56am | There isn't really much more to be said. We disagree on the fundamental definition of skills, but I think that might have something to do with how your project is set up. The chart I posted is based on existing game theory from other sources, so it might not be appropriate for your project. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 5, 2008 - 1:21pm | That's interesting, because my experience shows 45 to be exactly equivellant to D&D's 10-11, which makes sense, seeing as the same people who worked on D&D worked on SF, and at least one of Alien Worlds' two creators was and became even bigger in the D&D market. |
February 5, 2008 - 1:49pm | My experience is that chargen in most games is for "heroic" characters, not "average" characters. I think it's a matter of interpretation, not one of right or wrong -- I see the Alpha Dawn chargen rules as designed to create characters a cut above the norm, thus the common result of 45 is "good" when compared to the "real average", which I believe would be at about 35. If the AD chargen rules are for "average Joes and Janes", then yes, your method makes sense. If not, then you're really unfairly penalizing common folks. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 5, 2008 - 1:56pm | I have to agree with Corjay. It seems like 45 is what was supposed to be considered average for pc's. I think if you look through some of the published adventures, the base low-level npc's stats are in the 35-45 area. But, like Corvus said, its a matter of interpretation. Mine tells me that that SF pc's are a little different from the normal populace, I dont consider them to be heroic. That is something they build up to. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
February 5, 2008 - 3:53pm | I was wrong, 45 = 9 in D&D, which shows that D&D is the one
attempting heroic numbers, or at least moreso than SF. To show the
D&D to SF breakdown, here's how it looks when you compare the
average starting roll of D&D's 3-18 with SF's starting roll of
30-70. The bold equals the average obtained for each game.: 3 = 30 4-5 = 35 6-7 = 40 8-9 = 45 10-11 = 50 12-13 = 55 14-15 = 60 16-17 = 65 18 = 70 When we compare straight 20 to straight 100, we get the something similar: 1 = 05 2 = 10 3 = 15 4 = 20 5 = 25 6 = 30 7 = 35 8 = 40 9 = 45 10 = 50 11 = 55 12 = 60 13 = 65 14 = 70 15 = 75 16 = 80 17 = 85 18 = 90 19 = 95 20 = 100 Dark Red = Corvus' "0" point Dark Blue = Corjay's "0" Green = D&D/d20's "0" point Now, if we take the average roll in D&D ability generation and compare it to the average roll in SF ability generation, we get something very different. In D&D, you roll 4 6-sided dice and discard the lowest roll. So this will be comparative to rolling a 2, 3, 4, and 5. So you discard the 2. That gives you an average score of 12, which ends up giving everyone an average of a +1 bonus. In SF, 45 is designed to take the curve. This is actually equivellant to rolling 4 6-sided dice and discarding the highest roll instead. So in D&D, every SF character would actually get a -1 penalty. That is a disadvantage in itself. I use D&D, or in other words the d20 system, as the comparison, because d20 makes up around 70% of the RPG market. Another 15-20% of the market relies upon the original d6 manner of determining stats which is very similar to d20. However, many of those systems provide no standard average and no standard bonuses in the way d20 does. Later, I'll show an analysis of how a bonus and a penalty affects each ability. What I'd like to know, Corvus, and forgive me if this puts you on the spot, I'm just looking for the best way to do these bonuses and penalties and so as not to overlook something that may be correct, that's why I want to address your suggestion so directly. If it's correct, we can prove it by examing the evidence and disregard my bonus/penalty assignment, and if it's not, then it wasn't simply an exercise to make your idea look bad, but was an attempt to get at the facts. So don't take my attempt at deconstructing them as an attack. It is an attempt to find out which system is better. If yours turns out to be better, then I'll gladly use it instead. But to find out if it is indeed better or not, we need to look at the facts. I hope you will attempt to provide some evidence on your side. I have a habit of looking for evidence for the other team to see if I'm on the wrong track. |
February 5, 2008 - 3:29pm | I have to agree with Corjay. It seems like 45 is what was supposed to be considered average for pc's. I think if you look through some of the published adventures, the base low-level npc's stats are in the 35-45 area. But, like Corvus said, its a matter of interpretation. Mine tells me that that SF pc's are a little different from the normal populace, I dont consider them to be heroic. That is something they build up to. Actually, Rum, that is what I was saying. PCs are heroic, not average. My point is that, for example, a "PC average" score in 3.5 D&D is about 12-13, which is a +1 bonus, rather than 10-11, which is a +0 and is the average for most normal people. This says, to me, that PCs, who are heroic, are supposed to have bonuses associated with their PC-average scores, not be the zero-level by which the scale is constructed. Or, to put it another way, a PC's average bonus should be +1/+5%, not +0. Average folks should have the +0, not the -1/-5%, etc. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 6, 2008 - 1:59pm | I was wrong, 45 = 9 in D&D, which shows that D&D is the one
attempting heroic numbers, or at least moreso than SF. Wow, no, that is completely not how I see it lining up. I see it as a Star Frontiers 45 equalling a d20/D&D score of 12-13, which is "above average". You have it as "below average". I really do not see how you're getting that lineup at all. Edit: I actually do "see" how you're getting it, I just completely do not agree with the reasoning behind it. There, that's better. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 6, 2008 - 3:40pm | Okay, I understand that you don't agree. I would like a breakdown of why, with a provision of evidence. I can take your word for it, but I could take the word of someone who just says I have to jump off a cliff to save my life, but I don't think I would be alive for very long if I just took his word for it. What evidence do I have to believe my life is in danger or that I must jump off the cliff to save my life? (Not that my life is in danger with your example, but just making a point about the need for evidence to support a claim, which would otherwise be known as an unsupported claim.) |
February 6, 2008 - 10:24pm | I've already given you as much "evidence" as there is. There is no magic bullet here, you're asking for something that doesn't exist. Crack a D&D book if you don't believe me. D&D chargen is set up to create heroic individuals and does so by giving them an extra die to roll. Star Frontiers does not give the extra die to roll, it goes about this differently by not using the actual die roll, but by using the die roll to represent another number. It clusters the most common result, which in D&D is not 10-11, but is actually 12-13 because of the "roll 4d6, drop the lowest" mechanic, at 45. This maps 45 to the 12-13 range, which is "above average" and thus nets a low bonus. It is not the zero point. It's right there in the text. I've already told you that I do not agree with you that Star Frontiers chargen creates average characters. I've told you I believe it creates heroic characters, which combined with the above Ability Score mapping means that the score of 45 is a heroic "average" and, going with the theory behind the game that you yourself evoked, nets a low bonus rather than being the zero-measuring point. There is nothing in any text, no "evidence" that can be shown to you to change your mind. You either look at readily available existing game theory and choose to use it, or you do not. Either way there is nothing to be gained from extending this conversation any further, as all I'm able to do now is repeat myself. Most importantly: It's your project, do as you see fit. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 6, 2008 - 11:35pm | I showed exactly the opposite below and am not understanding how you're coming to your conclusions, so I guess I'll just keep investigating on my own. |
February 7, 2008 - 8:27am | You don't seem to realize that the D&D "average roll" is not 10-11, because of the "4d6, drop the lowest" mechanic. 10-11 is the average roll of 3d6. Adding in the fourth die, even if the lowest is dropped, skews the average rolled total upward. Until you grasp that you will not understand what I am talking about. If you cannot bring yourself to understand what I am saying, examine this statement found at the weblog at http://d20.jonnydigital.com/2006/10 : "The average roll on 4d6 drop lowest is 12.244, compared to 10.5 on a straight 3d6. Your most likely rolls on a straight 3d6 are 10 or 11; this is the basis of the human average as well as minimum and maximums. Of course, a straight 3d6 rarely generates you a lot of high ability scores." The two relevant points: 1.) The average roll for the D&D chargen mechanism is 12.244, not 10.5. This is the "heroic average" I keep talking about. 2.) The basis of the human average, meaning the average for all humans, not just PCs, is 10.5, the average roll for 3d6, not 4d6 drop-lowest. This means that PCs are usually above average when compared to most other members of their species. This second point is backed up in the D&D 3.5e Player's Handbook, wherein on page 7, first column, first paragraph under the Ability Scores heading it states that 10-11 is the average for "typical commoners", but PCs are "not typical". This is nothing I have not already said. I don't know why you can't accept them coming from me; hopefully you will accept them coming from someone else since I have provided a link and a quote. This is the standard game theory for many roleplaying games that assume characters are heroic (D&D) without being superheroic (Exalted, supers games). Your understanding of the situation is more in line with Call of Cthulhu, wherein starting PCs are truly average people, which I do not believe is justified as Star Frontiers is a heroic milieu. If you still believe Star Frontiers generates average characters at chargen, then that is your right and as I said before it's your project, you should do as you see fit. What I have presented above is enough to make me disagree with you; calling for more evidence is fruitless and at this point specious. The only evidence that can even conceive of that could be brought to bear here would be a direct statement from the designer(s) of Alpha Dawn stating the same thing as above, that PCs are not typical. Unless you can find one of the designers to ask, you need to stop demanding an impossible proof and examine what evidence does exist. Whether you change your mind or not is irrelevant; you're dismissing the extant evidence out of hand because it doesn't contain a magic bullet. I will not comment on this further, so if it's really important for you to have the last word, by all means please do so. If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. -- Carl Sagan |
February 7, 2008 - 9:49am | That's actually what I said. YOU said that 35% is the average, not 52.5% (10.5). I said 45% based on curve. However, I just realized that any discussion about average is meaningless for this. In a game that relies on bonuses, it doesn't matter what you roll, but how frequently you want the characters to receive a bonus. Really, this is about curve. How much chance you're going to have within the game to get a "0", a penalty, or a bonus. When you look at the curve, SF puts 20 rolls (36-55) towards 45, that's more than any other number in the scale. To either side of 45, you have 15 rolls each (21-35 & 56-70), still more than any others on the scale (That means 50% of all the rolls go to those 3 numbers: 40, 45, and 50). Since the curve of the game is specifically designed to land on 45 more often than any other number, I think it should be 45 as the "0". If we put 35 as "0", then this gives a character a very good chance of getting a heroic bonus. If we set it higher, this decreases their chance of getting a heroic bonus, while increasing their chance of getting a penalty. In other words, I'm saying that character's should be closer to "0" more often. By saying 35, you think they should get heroic bonuses more often. If you were to say 55, then you would be suggesting that they get penalties more often, because the curve would be set toward the -1 slot. So, have you been saying to increase their chance of getting a heroic bonus? |
