Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Oh hm, I'd been doing it wrong. I thought it was "HT or Will depending on what the GM feels it should be."

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Not really, as long as you're consistent. Just expect some arguments from players if they come up against a foe with especially lopsided stats; e.g., if a bad guy has high Will, low HT, and you rule that this is a mental spell.

Interestingly, my original rule was just that: the signs stayed the same for both rolls, and on the first roll, your spell critically failed on a low roll instead of a high one.

The playtesters overwhelmingly hated it, because they felt that it wasn't "GURPSy" to have a spell fail on a low roll. So I changed it to make it more intuitive. Ironic, eh? :)

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Cool. I think that most players understand and accept the challenge of beating enemies by targeting their weaknesses. This is something that becomes a lot harder if either HT or Will are just as good at countering ALL spells. Of course, it also makes the players vulnerable too! Again, I think that's a factor they can accept as long as the rules are made clear.


But in that Quick and Dirty method, it's the first roll that's not GURPSy. The vast majority of rolls made for the game are to roll underneath a target skill number and if a task is harder, the skill number goes down. But with this, the modifier is on the dice, not the target number. I don't get why this is necessary.

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Sorry, I was trying to explain that the signs for the first roll used to be reversed, but that came across poorly. (I blame cold medicine!) I've edited my reply to you to fix that.

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

But what about, as an alternate approach, using a slight variant of the rules given to generate what could be called a Malfunction Number like for firearms but for a spell? This has the benefit of being similar to something that already exists in the game and players are likely to be familiar with. In this this case, it seems we would get the same results if we set the base Malf number at 16 and then applied the inverse of the modifiers given.

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

I really like this idea.

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Could you go into more detail on this please.

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Ok. I've done up a sheet with my rewritten version of the rules. Anyone interested is welcome to check it out and see if it makes sense to them.

Use the Chart to determine the casters safe threshold

With that information, calculate the spell’s Malf Number. This is used to determine if a critical failure was rolled during the process of accumulating the energy or casting the spell.

The base number is 16 with the reverse of the modifiers applied.

Note that it’s possible to have a number as high as 19. If this is the case, play it out in detail instead.

Roll 3d and check vs the spell’s Malf Number.

If the roll is underneath Malf Number then the spell is successful.
If the roll is exactly the Malf Number, there is a critical failure resulting in a botch based on half the spell’s energy
If the roll is over the Malf Number, there is a critical failure resulting in a botch based the spell’s full energy

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

While I get what you're going for here - you've copied a page worth of text - that is a no-no. I highly suggest you remove the copied bits and load only the parts that are relevant to your rule change.

Re: [RPM] Questions
 

Ok edited my post.