Alt Resistance Table

[Harshax]

I recall this posted somewhere . . . Crashbox, Tal Meta, the old RQ Digest.

It was a mathematical formula for bell-curving the resistance table.

Anybody have any idea what I'm talking about? I'm digging through old files trying to dredge it up.

[AikiGhost]

The question is do you really want give a STR 10 weakling a 1% chance of pushing a SIZ 40 boulder? I'd just stick with the normal resistance table myself.

[Harshax]

Resistance Table Repaired
A^2/(A^2+P^2)

Formula by Jesper Wahrner
Date: 23 May 96
RQ Rules Digest: V2 #259

And no, it didn't result in the possibility of what you described.

Has anyone ever tried this table?

Sampling:

      8       9      10      11      12      13      14
 8   50%     44%     39%     35%     31%     27%     25%
 9   56%     50%     45%     40%     36%     32%     29%
10   61%     55%     50%     45%     41%     37%     34%
11   65%     60%     55%     50%     46%     42%     38%
12   69%     64%     59%     54%     50%     46%     42%
13   73%     68%     63%     58%     54%     50%     46%
14   75%     71%     66%     62%     58%     54%     50%

[frogspawner]

Nope. It looks hard to work out on the fly. And what problem is it supposed to "repair"?

[Rurik]

The problem with that (IMHO) is that the formula is not simple.

The Resistance table is so easy to calculate that I have not needed to reference the table in over 20 years now.

One of my favorite criticisms is of the Resistance Table is the old "Have to look it up on a chart and charts is evil" argument. I was able to do it in my head since I was 12 or 13 (when I first picked up Stormbringer 1ed).

A bell curve, while it may be more satisfying in a pure mathematical sort of way, to me adds complexity (and makes the table required) without making enough of a difference at the table to justify the added work.

Of course, if you expect to regularly oppose characteristics in the range of 240 vs. 250 the formula you mention would make a difference and work better than the 'normal' table - but you had better have your wall size resistance chart or calculator handy.

[Rurik]

Nope. It looks hard to work out on the fly. And what problem is it supposed to "repair"?

It 'repairs' the fact that in the traditional table, POW 5 vs POW 15 is exactly the same as POW 205 vs. POW 215. It does not scale as the numbers grow larger and therefore proportionately more similiar.

This is exactly the same problem MRQ tried to solve with the infamous and since abandoned (rightfully so) Halving rule for opposed tests.

Who knows, maybe the alternate table would be worth the effort with Superhero games or whatnot. I personally do not feel BRP scales as well as some other systems to handle super high characteristics.

[Harshax]

I've never used the table myself, but have always been interested in it. When I run BRP, I tend to be low powered compared to most, though high fantasy. Go figure. To me, having 100% in a skill is to be taken almost literally (actually I usually use 100% + Skill Modifier). Opposed traits are rarely higher than 40.

With the formula below, 1A vs. 40P has no chance while 40A vs. 1P does not result in an automatic success. Not sure if that is reasonable, or that having to look up probability is worth it, but it has always intrigued me.

How exactly does MRQ's opposed rolls play out? [maybe I'll go look it up now . . .]

[fmitchell]

The Keeper's Companion vol. 1 has a simpler "bell-curved" table based solely on the difference between numbers. I don't have it handy, though.

In that case, I believe it was explicitly designed so that a STR 10 character had a miniscule but nonzero chance against a STR 40 character.

[Rurik]

I've never used the table myself, but have always been interested in it. When I run BRP, I tend to be low powered compared to most, though high fantasy. Go figure. To me, having 100% in a skill is to be taken almost literally (actually I usually use 100% + Skill Modifier). Opposed traits are rarely higher than 40.

With the formula below, 1A vs. 40P has no chance while 40A vs. 1P does not result in an automatic success. Not sure if that is reasonable, or that having to look up probability is worth it, but it has always intrigued me.

How exactly does MRQ's opposed rolls play out? [maybe I'll go look it up now . . .]

MRQ Dropped the resistance table alltogether - everything is resolved as an opposed skill roll. In short the mechanic is: highest roll under skill wins, criticals trump normal successes (there is only a critical at 10% of skill, no specials).

If your skill is over 100, you can add the amount over 100 to your roll for purpose of determining the winner. All in all it sounds pretty similiar to how BRP resolves opposed skills from what I've heard - I don't have Edition Zero.

[frogspawner]

It 'repairs' the fact that in the traditional table, POW 5 vs POW 15 is exactly the same as POW 205 vs. POW 215. It does not scale as the numbers grow larger and therefore proportionately more similiar.

Oh, I see. Thanks!
Hmm, if anyone is bothered by that scaling wrinkle, maybe they could try opposed POWx5 rolls (or x1, or x1/10th) instead. Would that work?

This is exactly the same problem MRQ tried to solve with the infamous and since abandoned (rightfully so) Halving rule for opposed tests.

What was wrong with the 'Gooses Halving Rule, then?