The following is a group of short notes and comments on breaking points in odds in the 7th Sea system. It is interesting to note that compared to other systems, it is actually pretty robust against minimaxing. All Traits are important, there are no "throwaway" Traits even for combat-centred characters: Finesse determines your attack, Panache your initiative, Resolve how much damage you can take, Brawn how quickly you take damage, and Wits how well you actively evade attacks. Traits are clearly more important than Knacks (since they are "kept" dice) but not to the point of making Knacks or Skills moot as in many other systems (many R. Talsorian systems, for example, even though they have their own good points.)
That said, there are clearly some "breaking points" in the flow of odds. Players who are not immediately interested in the mathematical aspect of randomizing systems in RPGs (dice probability curves) may not have reflected upon this fact, but the odds in a game like 7th Sea are not linear. That is to say, a given increase in Trait or Knack (say by one point) does not always produce the same improvement on your chances of succeeding at a task.
The odds cited can be found in the Player's Guide; a similar table can be browsed online at the Crystal Keep. The article may grow longer at a later point if I decide to discuss the point-cost versus the effect on odds, but I fear this could be an encouragement to strict minimaxing, and that is not my purpose.
Return to top
As most people will observe after playing 7th Sea for a little while (or after examining the probability curves), the most significant breaking point in character efficiency occurs when Traits are raised from 2 to 3. The importance of this breaking point is due to the fact that the default or average task difficulty level is 15. This means that for a Knack level of 0 to 3 (starting level) and a Trait of 2, a character's odds of success range from 28% to 74%, while with a Trait of 3 they range from 66% to 97% (I am momentarily ignoring the added complication for unskilled actions, we will discuss this later).
For a TN of 20, the drop is even sharper: a Knack of 0-3 will give a success range of 37% to 82% for a Trait of 3, but only 12% to 37% for a Trait of 2. (See the small exerpt from the odds table below). Conclusion: the first development goal of a character, mathematically speaking, should be to raise all Traits to 3. This is the step from survival to swashbuckling.
The jump next jump, from a Trait of 3 to a Trait of 4, is also quite noticeable; it now takes a character from smooth competence to the ability to perform amazing feats on a routine basis. At level 4, a character is clearly above ordinary people -- especially since Heroes can spend Drama Dice and succeed at truly outrageous challenges if they are willing to pay the price. This is the point where power abuse can really begin if a Game Master is not thinking in wider terms than just rolling Trait + Knack. And this is where said GM should scrutinize a character's Background, Advantages, etc. to think of more interesting ways of challenging the character than just throwing tougher monsters and more Brute squads.
This is also the reason that Monty Hall GMs who let their players start with more than the basic 100 Hero Points can really come to regret it if they host long-running campaigns. Yes, a beginning Hero can be pretty pathetic; but that growth from raw beginner to larger-than-life swashbuckler is the fun part. Starting at the top just means cutting out room for development.
Return to top
The first breaking point in Knack level is obvious: the first point sunk into a Knack, which allows the character to re-roll tens, and removes the additional raise for unskilled use on the target number. The next breaking point is less spectacular, and also less noticeable than for Traits, but is there nonetheless. Every additional Knack point after the first gives diminushing returns for increasing cost (in terms of experience points), and there is relatively little effect on the probability curve after a Knack level of 3. In addition, as one might guess, the higher the Trait level, the less significant the effect of raising the Knack.
For illustration of the discussion, refer to the two graphs below, showing the odds of hitting various target numbers for Traits of 2 and 3 with varying Knack levels. Notice how the distance between curves decreases as the Knack level increases. The same effect is of course true at other Trait levels. Note also how non-linear the curves are (though they are smoothed). This is what I mean when I say that an increase of one point does not always produce the same effect on odds of success.
|
|
| Graph: Knack Effect vs. Trait of 2 | Graph: Knack Effect vs. Trait of 3 |
Return to top
Let us take a hypothetical case, with two opponents evenly matched, Attacks and Active Defence all at 6k3, not too shabby. Their Passive Defence will thus be a TN 20. If Player A needs to use Active Defence, per force it means that Player B rolled a 21 or better. Player A, unless he had a held action, needs to blow his next two actions to perform an Interrupt Action, assuming he can, and roll a 21 or more -- odd of about 76%, not too bad. If he has to beat a 25, however, his odds drop to 52%, and after that it's all over but the screaming.
In most cases, it's just not worth the odds compared to your odds of hitting the opponent with at least one of those two actions. In this case, that would be two shots at TN 20, odds of 82% each. In other words, for equivalent Knack and Trait, overall odds are better on Attack then Active Defence.
In our campaign, as an offsetting measure, the house rule is that to use an Active Defence as an Interrupt Action costs only your next action die, not two actions. This has made Active Defence a lot more popular with our group.
Return to top
