From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Vampire vs. Hero vs. Gurps etc...(Long!)
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:33:45 GMT

durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>	All of this confusion can be eliminated by just having a method of 
>>rolling which *always* distinguishes how well you do. Ars Magica, for 
>>example, distinguishes between marginal success and great successes *as 
>>well as* marginal failures and awful failures - with greater simplicity 
>>and no arbitrary distinction on the part of the GM. 
>
>Refresh me on this, please? 

	It is very simple. You add your attribute, skill, and a die roll. If 
the result is higher than the required difficulty, you have succeeded. If the 
result is only slightly higher than the difficulty - you have a marginal 
success. If the result is much higher than the required difficulty, then you 
have a great success. Etc. 
	The same thing is true in any other single roll system. In GURPS or 
Hero, if (with modifiers) you just succeed in your roll - that is a 
'marginal success', and if you just miss your roll, that is a 'marginal 
failure', etc. 

>>
>>Whether you want to call catching the torch by the wrong end a 'marginal 
>>success' or a 'failure' is pointless and serves only to complicate things. 
>>Another GM might call for a higher difficulty and say that catching it by 
>>the wrong end was a 'failure'. Neither of these choices is right or wrong - 
>>they are both equally valid. Hence requiring this choice is useless. 
>
>Not that arbitrary.  I can set the base point anywhere along the 
>spectrum from failure to success, which (imho) allows me to make some 
>useful distinctions.  There's certainly a difference between catching 
>the torch by the wrong end, missing it completely, and knocking it 
>into something flammable, right?  

	What distinction are you making by where you set your base point? 
You yourself just said that you can set it anywhere between failure and 
success, and the system will still work the same. That is what I refer to 
as arbitrary. 
	The distinction between the complete failure, marginal failure, 
and success does not require this 'base point'. In Ars Magica, you would say 
that the difficulty of catching the torch is, say, 16. Now you judge the 
degree of success or failure based on how close they got to that roll. 

>>	As I said, these differences are all a matter of interpretation. 
>
>Um.  Absolutely.  Setting skill roll modifiers in GURPS is also a matter 
>of interpretation.  Ditto Hero.  Are you saying that any game that 
>relies on GM interpretation isn't worthwhile? 

	No, I am not - and I thought I made that clear. What I am saying is 
that having these multiple ways of defining difficulty does not gain the 
Storyteller system any advantage over these other systems. 

>
>>	Hello? What exactly is the 'added flexibility' you gain by 
>>having a defense roll vs. an attack roll rather than a modified attack 
>>roll? 
>
>I was more thinking of the GURPS-style roll attack then roll defense
>versus the AD&D-style roll attack minus a defense modifier which
>remains the same for a given opponent on each attack.

	The point is the same. The chance of an attack hitting also 
remains the same in an attack vs defense roll system. The probability 
curve certainly is different between AD&D and GURPS, but that is not 
what you are debating, I think. 

	So what exactly is the flexibility that you are saying is gained 
by having these two rolls? In AD&D you can distinguish an attack which missed 
due to the defender's armor class, and an attack which would have missed 
even if the defender was AC10 (fairly simple, just did he roll less than his 
THAC0 minus 10?). 
	I am in no way advocating AD&D here - it's combat system is simplistic 
and ridiculous. I am just saying that a single roll can take just as much into 
account as two rolls. Sometimes it will be easier to represent certain 
probabilities in two rolls rather than one, certainly, and some other 
probabilities are easier to take into account in one roll. But the former 
is not 'innately' more flexible. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | "The future's not the same anymore."
Columbia University         | "What the hell's wrong with my langauge."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy