Making a homebrew system; need help w/ optimizing and balancing system itself (percentile)

Hello, everyone! I'm making my own RPG system from the ground up, and I've come here for advice before on things like designing content and whatnot. This, however, may be the biggest challenge yet...

To start, my system, preemptively called "TD Percentile," is, obviously, a percentile system; it relies on percentile dice, and like most similar systems, you must roll below an upper limit in order to succeed. The "TD" stands for Talent and Difficulty; Talent, or how capable your character is at any given task, serves as the upper limit for a roll to be successful, whereas Difficulty is a lower limit defined by the difficulty of the task. Therefore, in my system, you're not just rolling below your talent, but above the difficulty.

The talent with any given task is determined by adding two attributes of your character - either two Main Attributes, like Strength or Agility; or a Main Attribute and a Skill, like Knowledge and Physics - and adding in any additional bonuses and such. These attributes, like all other aspects of your character, may be increased by spending experience on them. If a character is doing something opposed by another character, such as attacking said other character, the Difficulty of the attack roll is usually determined by a derived stat known as a Defense (Blocking, Dedication, Dodging, Fortitude, or Skepticism)

The problem I'm having so far is a matter of scale, if you will - at the very first level, most characters have barely enough talent at the things they focus on to be considered almost effective. On the other hand, according to one of my friends and co-developers, at level 5 they just don't have any more room to improve their Talent at what they focus on, because said Talent is already at or above 100, the highest effective Talent someone can reach in a percentile system (there are 10 levels in my system, by the way). He also said that he could make a character with a Blocking Defense in the 90's by level 10, meaning that even the very best characters only have a 10% chance to hit this character with physical attacks. While I have yet to look at his math, I already know that a blocking defense upwards of 60 wouldn't be unthinkable in the system as it is now.

As of right now, my goals with this system are the following:
1. A character's stats should have a reasonable impact on the character's Talent.
2. A reasonable character must have enough Talent to be effective at what they do at any level.
3. There should be a significant difference between the abilities of a low-level character and a high-level character.
4. An army of low level characters should stand at least a reasonable chance against a high level character (thus, none of the unrealistic bounded accuracy of 4th edition DnD).

Goals #2, #3, and #4, unfortunately, do not mix well. As such, I'd like to know how other percentile systems have balanced between those goals. Going away from percentile altogether, while being an option, is a very last-resort option for me. If any more information is needed, I'm willing to share it upon request.

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

1) Look at Dark Heresy.

2) Feel free to go above 100% if you have to.

3) Plug my signature into your browser bar and steal rules as needed.

DMMike said:

1) Look at Dark Heresy.

2) Feel free to go above 100% if you have to.

3) Plug my signature into your browser bar and steal rules as needed.

Click to expand...

I've played Dark Heresy before. It seems to do a good job of satisfying goals #1 and #3, but it's absolutely horrible at #2 and #4.

My test players and I were discussing last night how to fix the problems I mentioned in the original post, and the best idea we came up with is "bypass," or the idea that increasing the Talent above 100% would proportionally decrease the difficulty of of the task in question. Is this what you meant by your second point?

I don't really have much of a reply to your third point, since it'll take me a while to give your rules a good look.

Thanks for the reply!

Jadebrain said:

As of right now, my goals with this system are the following:
1. A character's stats should have a reasonable impact on the character's Talent.
2. A reasonable character must have enough Talent to be effective at what they do at any level.
3. There should be a significant difference between the abilities of a low-level character and a high-level character.
4. An army of low level characters should stand at least a reasonable chance against a high level character (thus, none of the unrealistic bounded accuracy of 4th edition DnD).

Goals #2, #3, and #4, unfortunately, do not mix well. As such, I'd like to know how other percentile systems have balanced between those goals. Going away from percentile altogether, while being an option, is a very last-resort option for me. If any more information is needed, I'm willing to share it upon request.

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

Click to expand...

How about this:

3. Give high-level characters special abilities. A lateral increase instead of a vertical increase.
4. Reduce the difficulty when there are advantages, such as flanking, higher ground, outnumbering, etc. eg. The guy who has 90% blocking might see it reduced to 70% when fighting three guys.

LostSoul said:

How about this:

3. Give high-level characters special abilities. A lateral increase instead of a vertical increase.
4. Reduce the difficulty when there are advantages, such as flanking, higher ground, outnumbering, etc. eg. The guy who has 90% blocking might see it reduced to 70% when fighting three guys.

Click to expand...

Giving high-level characters special abilities wouldn't be much of a solution, since it doesn't directly address the problem of the decreasing chance to hit as levels get higher. Reducing difficulties in certain circumstances, on the other hand, is something I'm already doing; a character who is "distracted," for example, has his/her defenses halved. Being distracted could come from many different things, such as being attacked from behind.

Jadebrain said:

1. Giving high-level characters special abilities wouldn't be much of a solution, since it doesn't directly address the problem of the decreasing chance to hit as levels get higher. 2. Reducing difficulties in certain circumstances, on the other hand, is something I'm already doing; a character who is "distracted," for example, has his/her defenses halved. Being distracted could come from many different things, such as being attacked from behind.

Click to expand...

1. You don't need to increase defences as much as you are now because you're giving out other abilities.

2. If you can already halve someone's defences, what's the problem with defences? You're just making a system where the die roll is secondary to the ability to distract someone.

(Which could be a nice ability to get as you gain levels... )

What do your numbers look like now?

LostSoul said:

1. You don't need to increase defences as much as you are now because you're giving out other abilities.

2. If you can already halve someone's defences, what's the problem with defences? You're just making a system where the die roll is secondary to the ability to distract someone.

(Which could be a nice ability to get as you gain levels... )

What do your numbers look like now?

Click to expand...

I don't really get what you're saying with your first point... The defenses are mostly derived from other stats, meaning that they're most likely going to increase anyway. They get even higher when you account for things like equipment and benefits (my game's equivalent of feats or perks), which will be mechanically necessary for low-level characters to have meaningful defenses.

Your second point assumes that I'm trying to make a system that blatantly favors certain types of characters (like how older editions of DnD favored spellcasters over non-spellcasters, or just about anything over fighters, or so I've heard). While some favoring is inevitable, I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible.

To get a full picture of the numbers, I'd have to do some work which will take a long time. I have a feeling that my friend's "90 Blocking" character was an extreme hypothetical scenario, as opposed to a realistic one.

Jadebrain said:

I don't really get what you're saying with your first point... The defenses are mostly derived from other stats, meaning that they're most likely going to increase anyway. They get even higher when you account for things like equipment and benefits (my game's equivalent of feats or perks), which will be mechanically necessary for low-level characters to have meaningful defenses.

Click to expand...

With my first point I'm trying to say that, instead of giving characters increased Talents and Defences when they level up, give them something else. Then you won't have to worry about high numbers but high-level characters will be much more potent than lower-level ones.

So instead of 90% block and 90% attack at 10th level, you've got 50% bock and 50% attack and the ability to melt steel with a touch, or survive without air for extended periods of time, or fast healing, or whatever fits your game.

Jadebrain said:

Your second point assumes that I'm trying to make a system that blatantly favors certain types of characters (like how older editions of DnD favored spellcasters over non-spellcasters, or just about anything over fighters, or so I've heard). While some favoring is inevitable, I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible.

To get a full picture of the numbers, I'd have to do some work which will take a long time. I have a feeling that my friend's "90 Blocking" character was an extreme hypothetical scenario, as opposed to a realistic one.

Click to expand...

I'm imagining a system where player skill means more to resolution of a character's actions than that character's numbers. The key to resolving a combat in your favour - even if your opponent is of greater skill - is to somehow "distract" them; that factor outweighs the dice. (Not completely, but to a large degree.) That's not related to your character's skill, but your skill as a player.

LostSoul said:

With my first point I'm trying to say that, instead of giving characters increased Talents and Defences when they level up, give them something else. Then you won't have to worry about high numbers but high-level characters will be much more potent than lower-level ones.

So instead of 90% block and 90% attack at 10th level, you've got 50% bock and 50% attack and the ability to melt steel with a touch, or survive without air for extended periods of time, or fast healing, or whatever fits your game.

Click to expand...

Well, there has to be a way to mechanically influence accuracy through the design of a character, because it wouldn't make any sense flavor-wise not to.

I'm imagining a system where player skill means more to resolution of a character's actions than that character's numbers. The key to resolving a combat in your favour - even if your opponent is of greater skill - is to somehow "distract" them; that factor outweighs the dice. (Not completely, but to a large degree.) That's not related to your character's skill, but your skill as a player.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I absolutely HATE systems or mechanics that place more importance on the player's ability than the character's. For example, in DnD 4th edition, I've always wanted to play a Tactical Warlord - but I can't, because a Taclord is going to be expected to be good at strategy and tactics. I suck horribly at strategy and tactics (I even tried reading Sun Tzu's Art of War, and all I really got out of it was nonsensical riddles), and my character itself is never going to make up for that sort of thing no matter what his stats are, because there's no way for my character to make decisions on his own, because I control him.

Then there's World of Darkness: there's a way for characters to be able to make up for a lack of wisdom and cleverness on the player's part (the Common Sense merit), but it doesn't just require an investment, it requires a HUGE investment, all basically amounting to a ridiculous tax on the character for something intrinsic to the player. No, I'd prefer mechanics that allow a character's stats to influence their course, and have it NOT be a tax. You know, like a check any character can make, but could be made more reliably by investing in a skill (which, granted, could be seen as a tax, but it's not one you wouldn't be paying anyway with certain characters).

But that's tangential to this thread.

Jadebrain said:

Well, there has to be a way to mechanically influence accuracy through the design of a character, because it wouldn't make any sense flavor-wise not to.

Click to expand...

Thought I read earlier that you have 10 levels...how is it that you're needing to exceed 100 points by level 10? Why are the defence/difficulties increasing so much?

Jadebrain said:

Sorry, but I absolutely HATE systems or mechanics that place more importance on the player's ability than the character's. For example, in DnD 4th edition, I've always wanted to play a Tactical Warlord - but I can't, because a Taclord is going to be expected to be good at strategy and tactics. I suck horribly at strategy and tactics (I even tried reading Sun Tzu's Art of War, and all I really got out of it was nonsensical riddles), and my character itself is never going to make up for that sort of thing no matter what his stats are, because there's no way for my character to make decisions on his own, because I control him.

Click to expand...

Taclords aren't written very well if they require player skill to be played. The point of an RPG is to be allowed to play something you're not. With that said, the player should still be challenged here or there, but not to the point where gaming isn't fun.

Jadebrain said:

Then there's World of Darkness: there's a way for characters to be able to make up for a lack of wisdom and cleverness on the player's part (the Common Sense merit), but it doesn't just require an investment, it requires a HUGE investment, all basically amounting to a ridiculous tax on the character for something intrinsic to the player. No, I'd prefer mechanics that allow a character's stats to influence their course, and have it NOT be a tax. You know, like a check any character can make, but could be made more reliably by investing in a skill (which, granted, could be seen as a tax, but it's not one you wouldn't be paying anyway with certain characters).

Click to expand...

It's really up to the GM to help out players who don't play very well. Sure, a game mechanic helps, but it should only be a substitute or alternative to GM assistance.

I think it boils down to this: the player's job is to have fun. Let the character do the hard work.