Spectacular results

[Hemdian]

I’ve been running a T5 campaign for a while now. And I’ve been running it mostly RAW, certainly less houserules than with other systems. But the ‘spectacular’ results don’t feel quite right: For example, you could get spectacular success during a failed roll (or vice versa), and the chance of spectacularness is just too rare and unrewarding compared with other games.

My players come from a D&D background. Generally, you roll 1d20 with ‘1’ meaning ‘fumble’ (AKA spectacular failure) and ‘20’ meaning ‘critical hit’ (AKA spectacular success) regardless of the overall success/failure odds. That got me thinking:

Alternative Houserule 1

You could scrap the standard T5 rules for spectacular results and instead have a separate 2d6 roll … 2 = spectacular success, 12 = spectacular failure, 3-11 = roll normally for normal success/failure. And to speed things up, if the 2d6 are a different colour to the other dice, you can roll all of them together. This is close to the D&D model and doesn’t have the odds of spectacularness (including spectacular success) increase with harder tasks. The downside is it does alter the overall success/failure odds slightly.

Or …

Alternative Houserule 2

Then I thought, why not roll normally to determine success/failure, and roll a separate 2d6 … 2-3 = spectacular, 4-12 = normal. This preserves the overall success/failure odds while keeping the chance of spectacularness reasonable (and constant with difficulty). You could even vary the range for different story effects (for example, make PCs more ‘epic’ by having them be spectacular on a roll of 2-3, major NPCs on a roll of 2 only, and minor NPCs not at all).

Thoughts? How do other T5 Referees handle this (RAW or houserule)?

 

[whulorigan]

I haven't actually tried this, but what about adding an additional "half-die" (i.e. D3) to each roll that needs to be an actual physical D6 of a different color than the others. This will actually slightly decrease the general chance of success of each task roll (i.e. Easy/Routine= 1½D; Average = 2½D; Difficult = 3½D; Formidable = 4½D; etc.), but you will actually use what is physically showing on the ½D to compare with the other dice to see if you get three 1's or three 6's. This will allow an average task (2½D) to get spectacular results (if the ½D is physically showing a 1 (while only adding a 1 to the overall roll) or a 6 (while only adding 3 to the overall roll). It will also increase the odds of spectacular success or failure of the higher difficulty throws without significantly increasing their actual difficulty in practice.

 

[Timerover51]

While not running a T5 campaign, I do like your ideas, and will give serious thought to using them.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I’ve been running a T5 campaign for a while now. And I’ve been running it mostly RAW, certainly less houserules than with other systems. But the ‘spectacular’ results don’t feel quite right: For example, you could get spectacular success during a failed roll (or vice versa), and the chance of spectacularness is just too rare and unrewarding compared with other games.

It's baked into the system. E.g. the only way to get a success on some Astrogation tasks is with spectacular success.

Don't change it without playing with it for a while...

DnD, it is not.


If you want to make it easier look at the probabilities in the Dice Tables (B1, pp253-258) to get a percentage and roll a D100?

 

[Ulsyus]

We kept it as-is. While the chance of a spectacular result increases with the difficulty of the task and hence number of dice rolled, the chances are pretty slim. As a percentage, I think they come out at only 4% when rolling four dice (according to the BBB) but I don't have the maths to work out the likelihood with more and rely on the BBB's tables indicating it could be 4% for four dice and 8% with five dice.

 

[Baroun Tardis]

In my games, I use the total number rolled as "degree of success". If you need to roll a 14 or less and hit the 14, it's an "exceptional", with most of the effects of a "spectacular"

Using this degree of success for opposed tasks worked nice. We once had a pair of nobles "duel" via which of their chef's could make the best meal. I explained to the player they could pick any number of dice they wanted for the difficulty level, and thus a potentially higher total, but if the total went over C+S they failed completely.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I wrote a die roll calculator app for T5.10. So I guess I'm using RAW then for criticals if there are such rules. I don't remember.

 

[Ulsyus]

In my games, I use the total number rolled as "degree of success". If you need to roll a 14 or less and hit the 14, it's an "exceptional", with most of the effects of a "spectacular"

Using this degree of success for opposed tasks worked nice. We once had a pair of nobles "duel" via which of their chef's could make the best meal. I explained to the player they could pick any number of dice they wanted for the difficulty level, and thus a potentially higher total, but if the total went over C+S they failed completely.

That sort of margin-of-success makes better outcomes more achievable at higher difficulty levels. You could aim to roll a total less than or equal to the # of dice, thus having both regular successes and an alternative spectacular result. That would keep the % chance of getting a spectacular result down to <1% at each level. The converse for failure could be something proportionate.