Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2019, 01:48 AM   #21
Gnaskar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
Since Mind Control is inherently Supernatural*... how do you pan on doing that?
Mind control drugs in a cyberpunk setting.
Gnaskar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2019, 02:20 AM   #22
WingedKagouti
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
Magic Resistance is cheaper than raising a spell (2 CP/level versus 4 CP/level). A character can purchase Magic Resistance 20 for only 40 CP, so the only thing keeping characters vulnerable to magic is their desire to benefit from magic.
You may be able to shrug off the direct spells of a hostile mage such as Daze, Charm or Fireball, but Magic Resistance offers no protection from the damage dealt by a summoned elemental/demon (unless it uses spells to deal damage), a created servant or the blaze started by Ignite (if the environment has anything flammable). Of course, those scenarios are rarely going to involve a resistance roll in the first place, so the Rule of 16 (or the cost of MR vs skill) is not in question there.

Also, healing magic (including potions) is quite useful if you want to keep on going without having to spend a couple of days recovering after a challenging skirmish. I'd generally not want to give anyone trying to help me that way a -20 penality to their rolls.
WingedKagouti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2019, 03:22 AM   #23
ErhnamDJ
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: OK
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
Since Mind Control is inherently Supernatural*... how do you pan on doing that?
It had never occurred to me that the word 'supernatural' in the text for the Rule of 16 referred to the game term rather than the normal English word.

Affliction is exotic, not supernatural, if we're going by the symbol next to it. And yet it can be used to produce what are English-supernatural abilities (it can perfectly mimic Mind Control, for instance).

It's still strange that the Rule of 16 applies to a magical attack, but not to, for instance, exotic pheromones or other non-supernatural attacks. I don't understand what design goal that difference furthers.
__________________
"For the rays, to speak properly, are not colored. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that color." —Isaac Newton, Optics

My blog.
ErhnamDJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2019, 05:43 AM   #24
evileeyore
Banned
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaskar View Post
Mind control drugs in a cyberpunk setting.
That wouldn't be an inherent Character ability would it. Also, wouldn't be a resisted Will attack, would be a "resist by rolling HT with this bonus or penalty" which is not a contested resistance.


Sure, you could make is a contested resistance roll, but going this route to avoid the Rule of 16 just seems like a jerk move as GM.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ View Post
It had never occurred to me that the word 'supernatural' in the text for the Rule of 16 referred to the game term rather than the normal English word.
It probably doesn't. I just checked, Mind Control isn't Supernatural.


Quote:
It's still strange that the Rule of 16 applies to a magical attack, but not to, for instance, exotic pheromones or other non-supernatural attacks.
It can. I've seen it applied to Kiai Shouts for instance.

The rule says "If a supernatural attack (magic spell, psi ability, etc.)..." so I mean the 'etc' is right there.

Quote:
I don't understand what design goal that difference furthers.
The designers are fallible, the rule originally literally only applied to resisted spells and was broadened later to 'supernatural' in general, and I'll be honest, I don't think I've ever not seen it applied to a resistance roll regardless of the source.

Granted I can't think of a single instance the resisted source wasn't supernatural or at least 'exotic' (Chi abilities).
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2019, 10:37 AM   #25
kdtipa
 
kdtipa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

I'm in the camp that the Rule of 16 is a good rule to have where resist-or-lose abilities exist, and that the most likely consequence of not including it would be the significant off-balancing either from clever players (or power gamers), or from NPCs the GM made mistakes with.

Also, to address the "living" thing question... the rules does say "sapient"... so I think vampires and self-aware robots are protected too...

Quote:
If a supernatural attack (magic spell, psi ability, etc.) offers a resistance roll and the subject is living or sapient, the attacker’s effective skill cannot exceed the higher of 16 and the defender’s actual resistance. If it does, reduce it to that level.
I also see that "supernatural" is lower case, which may indicate they're just trying to suggest that we're not talking about arrows, guns, swords, and other mundane attacks.

My big complaint has always been that it's confusing. If the defender's resistance is lower than 16, effective skill of the attacker is capped at 16, so that attack works best on people with weak defenses. If the defender's resistance is 16+X where X is 1 or greater, the attacker's effective skill capped at 16+X, though the defense could be higher hypothetically.

That's confusing. I can figure it out. It's just more complicated than I think it has to be. It might be easier to make a different rule...
Rule of Resistance
For any kind of attack that affords a resistance roll by a living or sentient target, the margin of success (and therefore the penalty to the resistance roll) cannot exceed 4.
Way less math, and still achieves the goal of making it so that super high skill won't off-balance anything. Things like Will and HT are already limited, so defenses can't get unreasonable, and the GM can impose limits on things like Magic Resistance. And you could adjust the limit on margin of success as you like too.

Example: Weak Defense vs Weak Attack
In the RAW with the Rule of 16, a defense of 10 against an attack of 10 is unaffected. The dice control it entirely.

In my proposed house rule, a defense of 10 against an attack of 10 is pretty much unaffected again... except if the attacker manages to roll a 5, their margin of success still counts as 4, and the defender gets a tiny bit of help.

Example: Strong Defense vs Strong Attack
With the Rule of 16, an attacker with skill 25 against a defender with a defense of 18 means that the max effective skill of the attacker is 18, so it becomes an equal roll-off again. Who will roll better?

In my proposed house rule, the attacker with skill 25 is extremely likely to hit the limit of 4 for margin of success (only not true if they roll 17 or 18). The defender has their defense of 18, and they have a -4 essentially. 14 or less and they win which is much better than 50/50 odds. It favors the defender which I like because I've always hated "save or die" spells in D&D, and I hate "resist or lose" spells/abilities in GURPS.

Example: Weak Defense vs Strong Attack
Now in this example we have the powerful attacker going against the weak defender. With the rule of 16 in place, an attacker with skill 25, and a defender with a score of 10... the attacker has an effective skill of 16, giving them a 6 point lead in the contest. The attacker is very likely to win which makes sense.

With my house rule, the attacker just has their margin of success of 4, and the defender with a score of 10 gets to try to roll 6 or below instead of the more likely need for a critical success. It helps the defender out a bit, but not so much that it makes the attack pointless.

Example: Strong Defense vs Weak Attack
By RAW, you don't have to modify anything. The defender is going to win with an 8 point lead.

With the house rule, the attacker might have to limit their margin of success to 4 if they roll 5 or lower... but... it's unlikely, and the high defense would probably win anyway.

Conclusion...
The house rule favors the defender a little, but I like that. The thing I REALLY like is that the math is way easier to understand. This is all just a thought that occurred to me as I was writing in support of the rule of 16 for keeping a game from having a loop-hole that could be exploited to detrimental effect.
kdtipa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2019, 11:00 AM   #26
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ View Post
It had never occurred to me that the word 'supernatural' in the text for the Rule of 16 referred to the game term rather than the normal English word.
I'm pretty sure the actual intent was "anything that isn't a mundane skill or a ST roll".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ View Post
Affliction is exotic, not supernatural, if we're going by the symbol next to it. And yet it can be used to produce what are English-supernatural abilities (it can perfectly mimic Mind Control, for instance).
The Rule of 16 only applies in the case of Malediction, and that should probably be flagged as Supernatural.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2019, 08:12 AM   #27
Mavelic
 
Mavelic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Amboise, France
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdtipa View Post
Conclusion...
The house rule favors the defender a little, but I like that.
I like your idea, but what disturb me as a GM (and player, ofc.) is what you say in your conclusion : it favors defence.
And i don't agree with that, as i prefer to give attacker a slight advantage.
Maybe your margin of success should exceed 4 according to the attacker level of skill, ie 5 if attack skill is 20-24, 6 with 25-29, and so on.

Also, i report there my idea of increasing X in the Rule of X with the skill level of the attacker, ie Rule of 17 for 20-24, Rule of 18 with 25-29, etc. However these skill values are not fixed yet, i think of every 4 skill levels instead, especially with spells to avoid a stair effect with other spell's advantages (ft cost, ritual, etc.).

My piece of idea... :)
Mavelic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2019, 11:02 AM   #28
kdtipa
 
kdtipa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavelic View Post
I like your idea, but what disturb me as a GM (and player, ofc.) is what you say in your conclusion : it favors defence.
And i don't agree with that, as i prefer to give attacker a slight advantage.

...

My piece of idea... :)
To better explain my preference for favoring defense: I don't mean that in general. Just with attacks that allow a resistance roll and whose effect would end the fight. For example a sleep spell. Being put to sleep in a fantasy setting means you're about to have your throat cut or head bashed in and there's nothing you can do about it. When the result of a roll like that can kill the character, I like to favor the defender because it sucks to have your character die because of one bad die roll.

A character dying because the player made a few bad choices and a few bad die rolls... at least there was time to save themselves. To do something different. When it's a single roll to avoid an effect that will effectively kill your character... I like to favor the defender.
kdtipa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2019, 03:02 PM   #29
scc
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
Actually, I was sort of wondering the same a couple of weeks ago (and forgot to ask the forum). That is, I was wondering what problem the rule is seeking to fix.

Basic Set doesn't make it clear, but Exploits in DFRPG does: "This prevents spellcasters from improving a single spell until it guarantees victory!"

Fair enough. But I still wonder: If a roll of 17+ is considered a critical failure anyway, is it meaningful to specify that some supernatural attack is capped at 16 (or more, depending on the resistance)?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the need for the rule. . . .
The Rule of 16 only applies to Resisted spells and I believe it only applies to the casters skill when making the opposed checks.
scc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2019, 07:43 PM   #30
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Removing the Rule of 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
Actually, I was sort of wondering the same a couple of weeks ago (and forgot to ask the forum). That is, I was wondering what problem the rule is seeking to fix.

Basic Set doesn't make it clear, but Exploits in DFRPG does: "This prevents spellcasters from improving a single spell until it guarantees victory!"

Fair enough. But I still wonder: If a roll of 17+ is considered a critical failure anyway, is it meaningful to specify that some supernatural attack is capped at 16 (or more, depending on the resistance)?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the need for the rule. . . .
Actually, a roll of 17 is a critical failure if your effective skill is 15 or less; otherwise, it is an ordinary failure (in enchantment it is always a critical failure)
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.