HWWJD? (more on AFF2e Skill Tests)

Continued from yesterday's post.

One of the ways to judge what kind of modifier should be applied to a Skill Test in AFF2e is to consider John of Salamonis, an ordinary human with some expertise in the task at hand (effective SKILL 7), and ask how difficult should this task be for him. As described in my last post, he has roughly a 60% of success at an unmodified Skill Test, which accords with the kind of score I usually give to a competent (but not ‘expert’) practitioner in a BRP/d100 game. Which is nice.

But let’s lay it all out in a table:

* In my own games, effective Skill for any task, including combat, is capped at 12. Achieving SKILL + Special Skill scores of greater than 12 allows Adventurers to have better chances of dealing with the kind of heroic level obstacles that impose large negative modifiers.

So, the top line gives us the modifiers that might be imposed on John of Salamonis. The second line gives us his chances of success (vs a target number of 14) as we vary the difficulty of the task. But we don’t need this level of accuracy when we are ‘eyeballing’ task difficulty. So the third line gives us his chances rounded to the nearest 10%, just as I handle BRP/d100 NPCs. As we see, this means that each extra +/-1 modifier can be imagined as adding or subtracting 10% from his chances of success. Which is nice.

Well, except for the jump from 60% to 40%, and that is fine as in my interpretation it represents the difference between an ordinary task being performed under ‘adventuring stress’ with one that has some distinct difficulties. Note that the 100s and 0s in that line represent circumstances in which John of Salamonis will only fail on a fumble (double 1s), or succeed on a critical (double 6s). Again, the actual chances are pretty close to BRP/d100s 5% fumble/critical range. Which is nice.

So when determining modifiers, rather than looking up tables mid play, I try to simply ask, ‘HWWJD?’ How Well Would John Do? If we think our competent everyman would have a 20% chance of success, we should apply a -3 modifier to the task. If we think he would succeed on anything but a fumble (double 1s), we need to give the task a +4 modifier, at least, if we bother rolling at all. And so on. These are applied to the effective SKILL of the Adventurers, which might well be greater (and sometimes, less) than 7.

I advise working out the task difficulties with John of Salamonis in mind, rather than by reference to the Adventurers’ effective SKILL. This is because if I prefer, as much as possible, to have the task difficulty fixed with regard to the fictional world – and John of Salamonis is a fixed point. If I work out task difficulty by considering the chances of Adventurers I do, unfortunately, find myself tempted to fit the world to the Adventurers. If a player has chosen to play a character with a high Sneaking Special Skill, his Adventurer should be able to achieve different things than if that player had instead created an Adventurer with a high Law Special Skill. The task difficulty should be set vs John of Salamonis, not vs Adventurer capabilities. However, the fourth line of the table does provide a guide to the chances of success broken down by effective SKILL (SKILL + Special Skill + modifiers).

(I promise to stop. Well, maybe. Most of these kind of posts are - quite obviously - me talking to myself, laying out the kind of material that I then turn into bullet points, mantras, tables etc. that end up stuck to my 'Referee Screen'. Or the bundle of notes I am using, whatever. It is intended to help me run a game more smoothly and to act as a check against me slipping into the kind of illusionism that negates player choice.)

Skill Rolls in AFF2e

In which I talk about the way in which I handle Skill Rolls in AFF2e, especially the ‘problem’ of what to do with low SKILL characters who are meant to be experts in a particular Special Skill. In short, don’t roll, and if you do roll, roll high unopposed.

1. Special Skill Points represent competency. This is independent of general SKILL levels. As per AFF2e p.25:

1 = Basic Training

2 = Fully Trained

3 = Expert

4+ = Master

2. Don’t roll the dice. Adventurers should succeed automatically when using Special Skills within the bounds of their competency. The dice should only be rolled when Adventurers are acting under unusual stress or attempting tasks beyond their competency. This means that an Adventurer with SKILL 5 and a Special Skill of 4 is far more able than an Adventurer with SKILL 8 and Special Skill of 1. In mundane situations, the first Adventurer will rarely be called on to roll the dice. As a ‘master’ most tasks will be within the bounds of his competency. The second Adventurer will only automatically succeed at tasks within the competency of someone with basic training. But when the situation is not mundane…

3. Roll the dice. The dice should be rolled when the situation is unusual or perilous, or when an Adventurer is attempting a task beyond their competency. In these situations there will be no difference between the chances of success enjoyed by the two adventurers described above. The Adventurer with SKILL 8 is able to make up for his lack of professional expertise in such a situation by his or her sheer grit, natural talent, ability to work under pressure, and/or downright heroism. The Adventurer with Special Skill 4 can make up for his lack of natural talent with his professional training. So, in such situations, does the Adventurer succeed or fail?

4. Does the roll beat 14?  All non-combat tasks should be resolved by rolling 2d6, adding SKILL and Special Skill, adding or subtracting any modifiers, and attempting to equal or beat 14{*}. This means that a character – let’s call him John of Salamonis – with an effective SKILL of 7 (an average human – SKILL 5/6 – with some training Special Skill 1/2) succeeds just a bit less than 60% of the time.

5. Modifiers to Effective Skill (see Capping Effective Skill)

A Legendary Feat [-8]

As an example, this is the modifier to an Awareness test if a sneaking character is invisible. This would reduce the effective SKILL of John of Salamonis, and most people and creatures of Titan, to 0. This means that, if the Referee rules the action possible at all, the chance of success is just under 3%. An Adventurer would need an unmodified effective Skill of 11 before this chance is improved (to 8%).

Almost Impossible [-6]

As an example, this is the modifier applied when fighting in darkness. This would reduce the effective SKILL of John of Salamonis to 1. Again, this means that the chances of success (vs. a target number of 14) is just 3%. However, expertise and talent tells more quickly, with Adventurers with an unmodified effective SKILL of 9 having an 8% chance, rising to nearly 17% at 10, and nearly 30% at 11.

Extremely Difficult [-4]

As an example, this is the modifier applied to Swim or Dodge tests when encumbered by a very heavy weight. This would reduce the effective SKILL of John of Salamonis to 3, which means that he has an 8% chance of success.

Difficult [-2]

As an example, this is the modifier applied with fighting while drunk. This would reduce the effective SKILL of John of Salamonis to 5, which means that he has a 30% chance of success. He will fail more often than not, but will succeeding often enough.

…er, but hang on. What about positive modifiers? What happens when things are easier than normal? In most cases, I argue that this should mean that Referee simply rules that the Adventurers succeed. Even the chances of our everyman, John of Salamonis, shoot up to over 70% with a +2 modifier, over 90% with a +4 modifier, and 97% with a +6 modifier (assuming double 1 is an automatic failure). The exception is, of course, effective SKILL in combat, in which positive modifiers do play a part (though I propose capping effective SKILL for human/mortal scale Adventurers at 12). In this case, the roll is not to beat a target number of 14, but the Attack Strength of the opponent, which can be much higher. The modifiers for combat are well detailed on p59 of AFF2e.

But note. Combat is the only place for ‘opposed rolls’ when I run AFF2e. When Adventurers are engaged in a contest vs the environment the roll is unopposed. Equal or beat 14, with modifiers for difficulty. In all non-combat contests vs NPCs, Adventurers likewise roll to beat 14, with modifiers for difficulty. I do not construct NPCs symmetrically to Adventurers. They have SKILL and STAMINA scores for combat, but their non-combat expertise is handled by key words and associated modifiers, which apply to the effective SKILL of the Adventurers, not the NPC. So, if an NPC description has that the NPC is keen eyed, I will also write that all Sneaking tests conducted against that NPC are at -2, for example. I don’t have to give him Awareness 6 to make up for a feeble SKILL score. Or the other way round – If Adventurers and NPCs are not symmetrically constructed I don’t need to worry about the effect of giving an NPC a high SKILL score – this only represents combat effectiveness, as per the original gamebooks.

It really does make statting up NPCs a piece of cake.

     

{*} The AFF2e rulebook has a suggested target number of 15, which means that there is a big difference between the default ‘roll low’ system and the alternative ‘roll high’ system. With a target number of 15 for the ‘roll high’ system, a character with effective SKILL 7 would succeed just over 40% of the time. In the default system, a character with an effective SKILL of 7 would succeed in rolling 7 or under 60% of the time.

Everything is Uncertain, Including Death (and Taxes)

“Quick, we must retreat!”

“Why? You look absolutely fine to me.”

“Yes, but the next the next sword blow will surely kill me.”

Or

“Have no fear, I will leap into the fray and hold them off, for I am fresh, so even if they all strike me I shall remain standing.”

Such are the caricatures of the abstraction of HP; combatants can take HP ‘damage’ without risk until they’re right down to the little numbers. These caricatures, and the implicit criticism, have some merit. Players do know that the Orc with a handaxe (1d6 damage) will not be able to kill their 8HP Fighter on this round. And they do know that their 6^th Level Fighter, whittled down to 3HP, is now in serious trouble, even if we can see no difference in his physical capabilities. 

Or rather, we think we can see no difference in his physical capabilities. The 5e Basic pdf says "The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature's capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points" (v0.2 p75). Of course I know why the rule book says this: we don't apply penalties to characters and creatures that have taken HP damage. But it is language like hinders and 'proper' understanding of the abstraction of HP and D&D combat - though as I note below the abstraction of HP is terminally undermined in newer editions. When the abstraction is understood, we can see that of course a loss of hit points does have an effect on a character or creature's capabilities. A PC with 3HP has far less ‘fighting ability’ than one with 30HP, even if their AC and THAC0 or BAB remain unchanged. Simply put, the 3HP Fighter will survive fewer rounds of combat than the 30HP.

But anyway, it is often difficult to grasp such abstraction, and the 'certainties' (see above) that it produces can sit uneasily with players and DMs. We might intellectually understand the abstract nature of D&D combat, but we often - instinctively - fall into making sense of these numbers (HD, HP, AC, ‘to hit’ rolls, etc.) as if they had a one-to-one correspondence with world.

So, let’s make things a little more uncertain, shall we?

Carcosa has PCs roll their HP at every encounter. You also have to roll to see what type of HD you have! Fun for a diversion, but the certainties in the two 'examples' above are not mitigated. Why not have the PCs roll their HD every time they are 'hit'?

Here’s how it would work:

Characters and creatures start with 0 'hit points' (HP). They have not yet been 'hit'. When a character or creature is 'hit', damage is rolled as normal, and this many hit points are added to their HP, which accumulate. A character or creature rolls their HD every time it adds points to their HP. So that 6^th Level Fighter would roll 6d8 (assuming no modifiers from CON), giving him somewhere between 6 and 48HP. It wouldn’t be quite as 'swingy' as that might look as the multiple dice produce a pronounced bell curve. If the total rolled is greater than the accumulated HP of damage, the character or creature can fight on. If the number roll is equal to or less than the accumulated HP, the character or creature is either dead or has suffered a serious wound.

Naturally, I need a good critical hit chart to generate the wounds and determine the chance of death. I am tempted by the extended critical hit charts from WHRP1e (found in the Character Pack, maybe one of the Apocrypha books) which have different charts for all kinds of weapons and sources of damage. ACKS’ ‘mortal wounds’ table might also be a suitable base. While I would want the procedure to be relatively simple, I'd also have to work out a simple set of modifiers to rolls on this chart. Presumably these would involve level, CON modifier, and perhaps the difference between accumulated HP and the last rolled HD total. And death? This would either be an automatic result on the far reaches of the chart, a consequence of a wound that is not treated or bound in time, or perhaps, to keep things simple, a Saving Throw (vs Death). For simplicities sake, most monsters and NPCs might die as soon as the HD roll is not greater than accumulated HP - this is a system about PCs, after all.

Or maybe the 'dice-drop' table I suggested ages ago... 

Whatever table I eventually use I've a feeling that it will have to be kind to the PCs. Or, at least, as kind as a critical hit/serious wound table can be. PCs are going to be more vulnerable using these rules. While 1st Level PCs will get killed/wounded by a single blow in this system and the traditional one, the real effect will be on PCs with around 3 or 4 HD. In the traditional system there is no chance that the first sword blow will drop them (especially with the kind of house rules that boost HP - max HP at 1st Level, re-rolling 1s, re-rolling all dice at each level, etc.), in this system some of those formerly 'insulated' PCs are going to fall in the first round of combat. But then, so are some of the monsters in the same HD range, which brings a much wider range of the bestiary into play much earlier on... along with larger treasures and greater XP rewards. Swings and roundabouts, eh?

But why do this?

Well, it gives me an excuse to use a critical hit chart. And do I love me a good critical hit chart. But it also means that even PCs (and monsters) of moderate to high level/HD are in an uncertain amount of danger once the daggers, axes, and swords are drawn. The cartoon criticism of D&D's accumulating HP is disarmed. Sure, higher level characters are far more likely to be able to fight for longer than low or zero level characters, but there will rarely be the guarantee that the next swipe of a sword will not do for them.

But more importantly than that, much more, it allows me to incorporate an aspect of ‘newer’ D&Ds from which I have always recoiled – easy HP recovery (or easy HP reduction, given what HP 'mean' in this system). As I've said, the abstraction of HP and D&D combat is often difficult to maintain in the imaginations of the DM and players. And players and DMs really do need to buy the abstract nature of HP and D&D combat in order to understand how the game effect of low HP = reduced overall fighting ability = a ‘wounded’ state. But for this abstraction to work, HP ‘healing’ has to be slow and/or difficult. If a PC can easily replenish their all HP, say with a ‘long rest’, the HP abstraction is terminally undermined. If a good night's sleep allows a PC to recover all their lost HP, then low HP very definitely does not = wounded, not even as an abstraction.

But at the same time I will concede that rapid HP recovery can improve some aspects of the experience of play. If PCs can recover their HP by taking a rest, swigging some brandy (see Crypts & Things), or hearing a rousing speech, then (of course) they can get a lot more adventuring done, especially during the first few levels of play. And these early levels are the key to a sustained campaign. So I'll be experimenting with this system in the next games that I run.

As a final point, easy HP recovery and no ‘real’ wounds means that PCs can fight all day, every day. This puts them on the 5e track – which given the 'XP per adventuring day per level' table in the DMG pdf I can safely caricature this as 'How to Hit Name Level in 30 Days, or Your Money Back!' I know that this meant to make players feel 'epic', but I can't imagine feeling less 'epic' than having my character, starting at 1st Level, is set to become a mighty lord in a matter of mere weeks of game time.

AFF2e House Rule – capped ‘effective’ SKILL

This isn’t going to make much sense to those of you who don’t play Advanced Fighting Fantasy 2e…

In AFF2e PCs and Monsters have a SKILL score, which for PCs ranges between 4 and 12. PCs also have Special Skills, for example Sword, which range from 1-6, which are added to the SKILL score in appropriate situations. This can, eventually, produce PCs with ‘effective’ SKILL scores way beyond 12 - though a starting 'warrior' PC will likely have an effective SKILL of 9 (SKILL 7 + 2 points of Special Skill) when using his or her favoured weapons. The monsters in Out of the Pit were given SKILL scores to provide a challenge to a single gamebook PC with an SKILL score of 7-12. This means that most starting PCs geared towards fighting are at the same effective SKILL level or better than most humanoid monsters. Even a Lizard King is only SKILL 9.

Combat in AFF is resolved by generating 'Attack Strengths' by rolling 2d6 and adding effective SKILL, with the character with the higher Attack Strength doing damage to the STAMINA of the loser. Differences in effective SKILL can be understood as modifiers to the 2d6 roll; a PC with an effective SKILL of 14 has, essentially, a +7 modifier to a 2d6 roll off vs a SKILL 7 Great Orc. Modifiers have a quite dramatic effect on the distribution of results on a 2d6 bell curve, so just a few points difference in effective SKILL can settle a fight. The effect of all this is that PCs with just a few sessions' worth of Experience Points (EPs) spent on SKILL and a weapon Special Skill are BAMFs.

Now, there is nothing wrong with PCs being BAMFs. Don’t misread what I wrote in the PatheticAesthetic – I was explicit that in Fighting Fantasy gamebooks YOU are often one of the most dangerous things on Titan – there is a 1 in 6 chance YOU would have SKILL 12, after all. But YOU are always a poor decision, or a Test Your Luck, away from your doom. In an adventuring party, containing several starting characters with the combat capabilities of a Lizard King, and with characters growing progressively more powerful (neither of which is part of the original gamebooks), the PCs are at risk of outstripping the power level of the world. What I am trying to do is find a way to accommodate the BAMF that AFF2e produces while retaining the risk, danger and peril that is found in every corner of Titan over the course of a long-term campaign. And I would rather fiddle around the edges of the AFF2e system than toss out the monster stats from the brilliant Out of the Pit.

So, I’m not proposing messing with the AFF2e experience point and advancement system. Players, if they choose, can still end up with a PC with SKILL 12 and pour all their remaining EP into getting Special Skill Sword up to 6. The advice in the rulebook is that between 30-40 EP should be given to each PC for the average 3-4 hours of play. Now, while it might take 1000 EP (25+ sessions of play) to go from SKILL 7 to SKILL 12, going from Special Skill 2 to 6 is a matter of just 180 EP (5 sessions of play). So, while the effective SKILL 18 munchkin is the best part of a year of weekly play away, it is likely that combat orientated PCs will have effective SKILLs of greater than 12 within a modest number of sessions.

I am proposing that, no matter what effective SKILL score might be arrived at by adding SKILL, Special Skills and circumstantial modifiers, for the purpose of SKILL tests or generating Attack Strengths the maximum effective SKILL is capped at 12. So in a situation with no modifiers, a PC with SKILL 11 and 1 point of Special Skill Sword has an identical effective SKILL as the munchkin Sword Master with effective SKILL 18 described above. If they are fighting each other, they both roll 2d6 and add 12. Essentially, each round is a 2d6 roll off.

This means that when the Sword Master comes up against a SKILL 7 Orc, he has, in effect, +5 bonus to his Attack Strength, rather than the +11 bonus ‘uncapped’ effective SKILL would produce. This keeps combat (and Skill Tests) dangerous.

But why become a master in a Special Skill? Why spend all those EP to become a 'Skill Master'?

Because in actual game situations need not (and rarely should) be straight forward duels in perfect conditions. There are plenty of factors that can produce negative modifiers. Do note: I am applying these modifiers to the effective SKILL, not to the 2d6 roll***. This means that the Sword Master described above can take a -6 modifier and still have an effective SKILL of 12. Meanwhile, his opponent, who in perfect conditions also has an effective SKILL of 12, fights with an effective SKILL of just 6.

So, when fighting in the dungeons beneath Lord Azzur’s palace, the Sword Master can extinguish the lantern and fight in absolute darkness. This will mean, with the -6 modifier for fighting in darkness, he will still have an effective SKILL of 12. His opponent, Azzur's captain of the guard - SKILL 12 - is reduced to an effective SKILL of 6. And the simplest way to understand this at the table is to think of it as a +6 bonus to his 2d6 roll of the Sword Master. And, having defeated the captain, when fighting up the narrow spiral stairs, he can easily shrug off the -3 modifier to his effective SKILL. In other words, those with an effective SKILL of over 12 are able to cope with conditions that would defeat the ordinary man or woman (or Dwarf, Elf, or Rhinoman). 

Skill Masters can also make easier use of the combat options that apply a negative modifier to their effective SKILL. So those with an effective SKILL of over 12 can more easily go on an 'All Out Attack' (-2 to effective SKILL to add +1 to the STAMINA damage caused) or a similarly 'munchkinned' archer could fire two arrows each round using the 'Rapid Shot' option, even in poor conditions, without compromising his or her effective SKILL.

These rules should also be applied to non-combat situations. However, this is much less important for my games, as I am thinking of doing away with opposed SKILL tests in non-combat situations. I'll write about that, and the virtues of 'asymmetry' in AFF2e in my next post.

***This is an important change. Modifiers that are, as per the rulebook, assigned to the combat total/Attack Strength are instead assigned to 'effective SKILL', which is calculated before the 2d6 rolls. And as described above, differences in effective SKILL can be simplified to a simple modifier to the 2d6 roll for the character with the advantage. Now, in this system it matters whether a condition abstracted into a modifier is represented by a bonus or a 'malus' (negative modifiers). Bonuses are of little use to those with already high effective SKILL if it is capped at 12, but on the other hand they are able to absorb the effects of any malus. I wondered if, with this in mind, all modifiers should be negative (only fighting down steps, outnumbering, and a rear attack give bonuses) but I figured that I would keep positive modifiers for two reasons. One, so that I can use the table in the rulebook, and so can my players. But two, so that being outnumbered would still be a frightening experience.

For example, Six Goblins (SKILL 5) attacking a Sword Master would each have an effective SKILL 10 (+1 for each extra opponent). The Sword Master would still fight at effective SKILL 12 (effectively a +2 bonus to the 2d6 roll), and could 'spend' up to 6 'points' in 'All Out Attack', or find other ways to apply negative modifiers to the effective SKILL of all combatants, in order to make use of his supreme munchkinned mastery. By comparison if outnumbering was abstracted into a 'malus', the Sword Master would still have an effective SKILL of 12, and the Goblins would each have an effective SKILL of 5, effectively giving the Sword Master a +7 bonus to his roll (and that is with 'effective SKILL capping) making for a far less interesting situation.

FINAL NOTE: Only PCs have their effective SKILL capped at 12. Monsters in Out of the Pit with a SKILL of greater than 12 are not capped in this way. These kind of monsters are rare indeed, being Demons, Elementals, Dragons and the like (even Giants are 'just' SKILL 10). Human(oid) PCs are not meant to beat these creatures in a straight stand-up fight, and indeed in the source material YOU are rarely expected to do so. The key is always to find the MacGuffin, the special weakness, or come up with a cunning plan to circumvent the sheer power of these monsters.