Skill resolution mechanics

Choinski, Burton Burton.Choinski at MATRIXONE.COM
Tue Jan 27 14:58:33 CET 2004

I think that in general we want to stay away from "table lookup" in terms of
running the game activities (I don't thing it is a problem for character,
treasure or encounter generation).

Combat and skill use is much more streamlined if all you need do is roll the
dice and judge the results right there.  when you add the table
lookup/cross-reference it interrupts the pace.

Burton Choinski
Principal Software Engineer, Quality Engineering
email: burton.choinski at

phone: 978-589-4089
fax:      978-589-5903

MatrixOne, Inc.
210 Littleton Rd.
Westford, Ma 01886

The First in Intelligent Collaborative Commerce

-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Sales [mailto:drite_mi at YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Skill resolution mechanics

I did a similar comparison before, myself. The table is close to an
arithmetic sequence on some parts, and exponential in others.
   The solution is sound, but I see a slight twist. Instead of making the
skill more like combat/magic, why not make combat/magic more like the
   Both systems use 5 levels of success, so they are already parallel in
that respect. The hardest dificulties should reflect the exponential factor
shown on the combat table for severe and deadly hits. (7% for deadly and
about 13% for severe iswhat I discovered, with an offset of -10 and +15,
respectively from a base 10). The simple levels show as pretty arithmetic. A
single table CAN be used to reflect this for skills and combat, and I have
already worked on a lot of peicing together.
   Magic is the factor that does not fall into this group neatly, however it
does fall in. The best 2 stages of magic are both success. The next two are
failure, and the worst is abysmal failure. A similar exponential-arithmetic
sequence comes close to fitting the magic table, after using this
consideration, but with a slightly different offset and base.
   I tested an exponential table with my players, and they liked it (a lot).
They said it was easy to read and use (two said easier, but I don't know if
I agree with them). The key to a centralized table is finding a good rate,
base, and off-set. If anyone is interested, I can try to dig the old tables

"Choinski, Burton" <Burton.Choinski at MATRIXONE.COM> wrote:

I'm not sure if we want to use the combat table (or even a combat-tableoid
thing) unless it could be regularized in some way.

A while back I was doing some research on revamping the table (if you plot
out the effectiveness curves (actual % per line for each level of success)
in excel it looks real wierd).  I found that in going from some lines on the
table to the next higher linn you actually LOST effectiveness (i.e lose 1%
of severe to get 1% of normal, etc).  I had figured out a regularized table
of percentages that, while not as "smooth" as the existing normal hit
chance, it was more consistent.  In this case I actually figured out a power
curve that fit the shield hit chance and modeled from there.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the pnp mailing list