Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Create a free account

WFRP Standard Tests - Creating macros.

August 15 (10 years ago)

Edited August 15 (10 years ago)
I thought I'd start a new thread to explore the challenge of creating macros dealing with WFRP style Standard Tests.

In its most simplistic state a WFRP Standard Test is just a percentile dice roll, where success is determined by rolling under the character appropriate ability.
e.g. Erica is gossiping with an the Innkeeper to try and discover which room the Countess is sleeping in. Her Fellowship(Fel) is 26, so the Innkeeper isn't that likely to be interested in a chat with her, but you never know.

&{template:default} {{name=Gossip Test}}{{@{selected|token_name} is gossiping =[[1d100<@{selected|Fel}) ) ]] }} 
Skill Modifiers
Where things get more complicated is that Erica may have skills that will assist her to succeed in her aims. These vary depending on which of the standard tests are being made (there are 37 tests listed in the rulebook), the relevant skills for gossiping are listed as Acting (+15%); Charm (+10%); Comedian(+15%); Seduction(+10%); Story-telling(+10%) and Wit(+10%). So if Erica had any of these skills she could employ them to try and increase her likely success.

The problem is that the relevant skills vary from according to the type of test.  So for example a Desease Test uses Toughness as a basic threshold, but this can be modified if the character has the skill Immunity to Desease.

So, a macro would need to know which skills affect the specific test being made, and whether the character taking the test has them.

Degee of Success
The second challenge is that the result is not a simple as Success or Failure.  The rules allow for the degree of success or failure to affect the outcome.
Degree of Success
PerfectPassed by +303+ DoS
SuccessPassed by 0-+290-2 DoS
FailureFailed by -1 to -290-2 DoS
BotchFailed by -30 to -593-5 DoS
FumbleFailed by -60+6+ DoS
The DoS is compared to a table and used to determine just how well, or how badly things went.

So, for the Gossip Test.
PerfectAll the latest news and rumours, plus any specific questions will be answered as accurately as possible.
SuccessAll the latest news and rumours, plus answers to one specific question
FailureOne piece of news, which may be a deliberate lie or completely irrelevant
BotchCharacter is ignored rudely, threatened, or deceived if NPC is already hostile
FumbleCharacter is reported to the authorities or enemies for snooping, or is even attacked outright

Relevant Posts Carried over:
https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2293350/initiatv...
https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2293350/initiatv...
https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2293350/initiatv...



 
August 15 (10 years ago)

Edited August 15 (10 years ago)
Degree of Success
I've been experimenting on Excel and as far as I can see a macro in the format below should produce a consistent Degree of Success return.

(([Modified Attribute Value]/30)+1)
This produces a result of 2=Perfect Success 1 = Success 0=Fail -1=Botch -2=Fumble

The issue we were left with was how to convert 2,1,0,-1 and -2 back into a meaningful confirmation of degree of success.

E.g. Erica has fumbled her Gossip Test. 

It really needs some sort of lookup table to return a specific piece of text dependant upon the row referenced by the value.

August 15 (10 years ago)

Edited September 09 (9 years ago)
I've completed the first version of the new macro.

It currently encompasses 35 standard tests (does not contain Employment or Gambling tests).

Required setup: 5 Rollable Tables and 10 Attributes (Cl, Dex, Fel, I, Int, Ld, M, S, T and WP).

Table NameTable Item (Sample Text)Significance
-2fumbled...Failed by a margin of at least 60.
-1botched.Failed by a margin of 30 to 59.
0failed.Failed by a margin of 1 to 29.
1successful.Passed by a margin of 0 to 29.
2a perfect success!Passed by a margin of at least 30.
August 15 (10 years ago)

Edited September 09 (9 years ago)
Create the following Rollable Tables:
Table Name
Table Item
-3Fumble
-2Fumble
-1Botch
0Fail
1Success
2Perfect Success
3Perfect Success
4Perfect Success
Note: Rollable Tables -3 and 4 account for edge cases and will probably not once come into play. At minimum, the six bolded Rollable Tables should be created.

With the desired Rollable Tables installed properly, the following macro will resolve a WFRP Standard Test and roll the Table corresponding to that resolution (which outputs a Table Item contained by that Table):
4
[[ 1t[[[floor((?{Ability} - d100)/29.99)+1]]] ]]
In order for the players to properly use this macro, the Players can roll from table? box must be ticked within all Rollable Tables.

Unfortunately, the exact percentile dice roll is unable to be displayed in the chat log by this method. Using 3D Dice assists, here.
August 15 (10 years ago)

Edited August 15 (10 years ago)
Hi Silvyre,

That works perfectly.  

The only thing I needed to do was replace the ?{Ability} query with a reference to the ability of a selected counter.

&{template:default} {{name=Gossip Test}}{{@{selected|token_name}s attempt at gossiping is[[ 1t[[[floor((@{Selected|Fel} - d100)/29.99)+1]]] ]] }}

So now what I get is as follows:


I've been reading through the 'Post your macro's here threads on the General forum to try and get some idea's on how to check a character sheet for the existence of modifying skills, but I get the impression that this isn't possible without having a Character Sheet from which to draw the information.

So, this might be as far as I can take it for now.
August 16 (10 years ago)

Edited August 16 (10 years ago)
One possibility for expansion exists through Roll Queries. Creating Attributes for skills, like so, for players to later fill out (like so) would allow the addition of queries to add skill modifiers, amongst other things, to one comprehensive test macro.
&{template:default} {{name=?{Action|Select one:|Gossip, @{selected|Fel} [Fel]|Construct, @{selected|Dex} [Dex]|Etc., 00 [Etc.]} Test (+?{Skill|None,0|@{selected|Skill1} (+@{selected|Skill1|max}%),@{selected|Skill1|max}|@{selected|Skill2} (+@{selected|Skill2|max}%),@{selected|Skill2|max}|@{selected|Skill3} (+@{selected|Skill3|max}%),@{selected|Skill3|max}|@{selected|Skill4} (+@{selected|Skill4|max}%),@{selected|Skill4|max}|@{selected|Skill5} (+@{selected|Skill5|max}%),@{selected|Skill5|max}|@{selected|Skill6} (+@{selected|Skill6|max}%),@{selected|Skill6|max}|@{selected|Skill7} (+@{selected|Skill7|max}%),@{selected|Skill7|max}|@{selected|Skill8} (+@{selected|Skill8|max}%),@{selected|Skill8|max}|@{selected|Skill9} (+@{selected|Skill9|max}%),@{selected|Skill9|max}}%)}} {{The attempt to ?{Do what?|do nothing} by @{selected|token_name} was [[ 1t[[[floor(([[ ?{Action} ]] - d100 + 0?{Skill})/29.99)+1]]] ]]}}
August 16 (10 years ago)

Edited August 16 (10 years ago)
It took me a while to work out what you were doing in the above macro, but it could be amazing if I can get it to work.

Here's where I've got so far.
  • I worked out that I need to add Skills 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc to the character handout as attributes.
  • I also think I need to add a value to the Max cell for each skill equal to the %modifier of the corresponding skill e.g. 10 for Charm as it add +10%
However, beyond that I got stuck, and I'm still getting errors.  Do I need to create all 9 skill attributes for it to work?

August 16 (10 years ago)

Edited August 16 (10 years ago)
Nevermind I managed to work it out, and it's really brilliant.

Is it possible to automate the 'do what?' query at the end of the macro?
After fiddling with the wording a bit I realised that all I was really doing was retyping the selections made for the Test and Skill queries. e.g. Gossip using Charm, or Gossip using Acting and wonder if these couldn't just be displayed in the appropriate place in the text string like the outcome.

Nevertheless as you can see the results look really good. (You can actually see me fiddling with the wording of the action to get it to make sense below)

However, there is one critical flaw in this all-encompassing macro idea, and that is that not all skills apply in all test situations.

So, Seduction skill might help obtain information using gossip, but won't help you hit him over the head with a club (Well I suppose it might if you had used it to persuade him to let you tie him up first, but I think that would be two seperate tests).  

So unless one was going to edit the characters attribute sheet before each roll it would be prone to errors and abuse.


August 16 (10 years ago)

Edited August 16 (10 years ago)

Didz said:

unless one was going to edit the characters attribute sheet before each roll it would be prone to errors and abuse.

The intention is to set up the required Attributes for each player before the game begins. You can now easily do this by duplicating Etelka Bohnen's Character Journal. The ability and skill modifiers used in the test are displayed in the name of the roll template. If you fear that your players may abuse this macro, I stress that they're equally likely to exploit other game mechanics. With a bit of extra attention paid to the skill levels of individual players, you could easily spot whether a player is cheating. I recommend that you reiterate this point to them to discourage such behaviour. That said, the macro I posted below makes it much easier to spot cheating.

Didz said:

Is it possible to automate the 'do what?' query at the end of the macro?
After fiddling with the wording a bit I realised that all I was really doing was retyping the selections made for the Test and Skill queries. e.g. Gossip using Charm, or Gossip using Acting and wonder if these couldn't just be displayed in the appropriate place in the text string like the outcome.

Let me know if this is formatted to your liking:
&{template:default} {{name=**WFRP Standard Test**}} ?{Action|Select one:|Gossip, [Gossip (Fel)] (@{selected|Fel})|Construct, [Construct (Dex)] (@{selected|Dex})|Etc., [Etc. (Etc.)] (00)} ?{Skill|None, [no skill]|@{selected|Skill1} (+@{selected|Skill1|max}%),[@{selected|Skill1}] (@{selected|Skill1|max})|@{selected|Skill2} (+@{selected|Skill2|max}%),[@{selected|Skill2}] (@{selected|Skill2|max})|@{selected|Skill3} (+@{selected|Skill3|max}%),[@{selected|Skill3}] (@{selected|Skill3|max})|@{selected|Skill4} (+@{selected|Skill4|max}%),[@{selected|Skill4}] (@{selected|Skill4|max})|@{selected|Skill5} (+@{selected|Skill5|max}%),[@{selected|Skill5}] (@{selected|Skill5|max})|@{selected|Skill6} (+@{selected|Skill6|max}%),[@{selected|Skill6}] (@{selected|Skill6|max})|@{selected|Skill7} (+@{selected|Skill7|max}%),[@{selected|Skill7}] (@{selected|Skill7|max})|@{selected|Skill8} (+@{selected|Skill8|max}%),[@{selected|Skill8}] (@{selected|Skill8|max})|@{selected|Skill9} (+@{selected|Skill9|max}%),[@{selected|Skill9}] (@{selected|Skill9|max}} {{The attempt to ?{Action} using ?{Skill} by @{selected|token_name} was [[ 1t[[[floor((?{Action} + ?{Skill} - d100)/29.99)+1]]] ]]}}
August 16 (10 years ago)
Yes, that's much easier to spot now.

I've already added 9 skill slots to Etelka Bohnen's Character Journal, so those will be copied to every duplicate created from it.  There might be a a situation where a character has more than nine skills but if so I'll just have to increase the number of slots and adjust the macro.  In fact, I might just check that and see how many skills are used as standard Test modifiers.  Not all of them are, some like Read/Write are just absolutes, either your character can or it can't.
August 16 (10 years ago)
Very good. Let me know if you run into any further issues.
August 16 (9 years ago)

Edited August 16 (9 years ago)
Well I've confirmed that there are 163 different skills listed in the rule book. but the largest number I have found linked to a single character was 17, and not all of those were used to modify tests.

Some of them are linked to tests that are really going to need a seperate macro anyway, such as Concealment-Rural and Concealment-Urban, which modify a Stealth test by either +20% or +5% depending upon whether the character moved or not.  But there are all sorts of variables with a stealth test anyway so it probably isn't something easily handled by a macro at all.  In many instances it has to be dealt with as an opposed skill check as the character they are hiding from may have a very high perception, or acute eyesight or hearing.
August 16 (9 years ago)

Edited August 16 (9 years ago)

Didz said:

Some of them are linked to tests that are really going to need a seperate macro anyway, such as Concealment-Rural and Concealment-Urban, which modify a Stealth test by either +20% or +5% depending upon whether the character moved or not.  But there are all sorts of variables with a stealth test anyway so it probably isn't something easily handled by a macro at all.

This may venture a bit beyond one's initial pay grade as a macro author, but it is possible to achieve this by nesting roll queries within other roll queries. For example,
&{template:default} {{name=**WFRP Standard Test**}} ?{Action|Select one:|Sneak, [Sneak] (30) &#63;{Concealment&#124;None&#44;[without Concealment]&#124;Urban&#44;+[using Urban Concealment] (20&#41;&#124;Rural&#44;+[using Rural Concealment] (5&#41;&#125; &#63;{Silent Move&#124;None&#44;[and without Silent Move]&#124;Urban&#44;[using ***Urban Silent Move***]&#124;Rural&#44;[using ***Rural Silent Move***]&#125;|Gossip, [Gossip (Fel)] (@{selected|Fel})} ?{Skill|None, [no skill]|@{selected|Skill1} (+@{selected|Skill1|max}%),[@{selected|Skill1}] (@{selected|Skill1|max})|@{selected|Skill2} (+@{selected|Skill2|max}%),[@{selected|Skill2}] (@{selected|Skill2|max})|@{selected|Skill3} (+@{selected|Skill3|max}%),[@{selected|Skill3}] (@{selected|Skill3|max})|@{selected|Skill4} (+@{selected|Skill4|max}%),[@{selected|Skill4}] (@{selected|Skill4|max})|@{selected|Skill5} (+@{selected|Skill5|max}%),[@{selected|Skill5}] (@{selected|Skill5|max})|@{selected|Skill6} (+@{selected|Skill6|max}%),[@{selected|Skill6}] (@{selected|Skill6|max})|@{selected|Skill7} (+@{selected|Skill7|max}%),[@{selected|Skill7}] (@{selected|Skill7|max})|@{selected|Skill8} (+@{selected|Skill8|max}%),[@{selected|Skill8}] (@{selected|Skill8|max})|@{selected|Skill9} (+@{selected|Skill9|max}%),[@{selected|Skill9}] (@{selected|Skill9|max}} {{The attempt to ?{Action} using ?{Skill} by @{selected|token_name} was [[ 1t[[[floor((?{Action} + ?{Skill} - d100)/29.99)+1]]] ]]}}
August 17 (9 years ago)

Edited August 17 (9 years ago)
It does take me while to decipher what you've done, but I'm learning a lot of useful stuff about macros in the process.  For me the advantage of doing it in the context of creating a macro for WFRP is that I have an idea what the result should look like.  A bit like putting a jigsaw together whilst knowing what the picture should look like based on the box lid.

I've already read through all the 'Post your macros here' threads on the General Forum and I've watched several video's on macro creation, but it's much harder to understand how a macro works when it's for D&D and you have no idea what it's trying to achieve.  I mean I can see the images posted of the end results and sometimes I still don't know what they mean.

Anyway, I've had a look at your latest offering, and it works.  Although in fact Eteika has no stealth skills at all, so strictly speaking she is cheating.


I'm just trying to work out how you did it now.

So the Sneak Test has a basic 30% chance of success, which you have modified by +20% if the character says they have Concealment Rural or Urban and +5% if the character says they have Silent Move Rural or Urban.  Etelka has no such skills but said she had for the purposes of the test and seems to have been given the bonuses, but it's obvious so someone would pick that up if she tried it in a game.

It then asks if she wants to use any other skills to help her avoid detection, and as you can see she tried using Acting to enhance her concealment, which seems to have been accepted.  Again Etelka doesn't have any skill as an actor, so strictly speaking can't use that skill, but assuming she had then perhaps she was trying to merge into a crowd by pretending to be a beggar or something.

But ignoring what the the macro actually does at the moment, what I'm getting from studying it is that it's possible to combine a number of different tests in a single macro by using the Query function to route the logic.

So for example:

?{Action|Select one:|Sneak, [Sneak] (30) - triggers a whole series of functions that handle the Concealment Test.
whilst chosing
|Gossip, [Gossip (Fel)] - goes into the functions required for a Gossip Test.

Therefore, in theory at least one could produce a macro that handles any number of different types of test, just be adding extra choices to that intial selection query, and they would all drop through the logic tree and end up reporting a degree of success at the end.

The real constraint then becomes
a) the complexity of the code, and length of the macro (I think WFRP has about 37 standard tests)
b) the number of choices offered to the player e.g. the macro could become annoying by constantly asking the players questions.

One solution to a) would presumably be to break the macro down into bite sized sub-macros and simply calling the appropriate one based on the main Action choice.  So, choosing Sneak would call the sneak test macro, choosing Gossip would call the Gossip macro.  That would work as long as the output still fell through to the Degree of Success section at the end.

b) is probably a Hobson's choice. Is it better to have one macro with 37 options, or 37 macro buttons.  I'm thinking 37 options is better than 37 buttons just because it isn't cluttering up the playing area.  But players might not agree. 
August 17 (9 years ago)

Edited August 17 (9 years ago)

Didz said:

Therefore, in theory at least one could produce a macro that handles any number of different types of test, just be adding extra choices to that intial selection query, and they would all drop through the logic tree and end up reporting a degree of success at the end.
This is certainly one path you could take.

Didz said:

The real constraint then becomes
a) the complexity of the code, and length of the macro (I think WFRP has about 37 standard tests)
b) the number of choices offered to the player e.g. the macro could become annoying by constantly asking the players questions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking time to incrementally write lengthy macros. That said, I don't view (a) as a real constraint, given enough time (note how the macros I've posted here have been gradually increasing in complexity). (b) is much more vital; user input should be optimized and minimized in any macro such that players will perceive them as useful. User input starts with the calling of a macro itself. That is to say, determine whether it is more convenient for a user to select one of 37 options from one additional roll query within a macro, or call one of 37 macros. I agree with you in that, from experience, the former tends to be easier, for both macro user and creator.

I cleaned up the last macro a bit for aesthetics in regards to the selection of a 'None' option on roll queries.
&{template:default} {{name=**WFRP Standard Test**}} ?{Action|Select one:|Sneak, [Sneak] (30) &#63;{Concealment&#124;None&#44; &#124;Urban&#44;+[using Urban Concealment] (20&#41;&#124;Rural&#44;+[using Rural Concealment] (5&#41;&#125; &#63;{Silent Move&#124;None&#44; &#124;Urban&#44;[using ***Urban Silent Move***]&#124;Rural&#44;[using ***Rural Silent Move***]&#125;|Gossip, [Gossip (Fel)] (@{selected|Fel})} ?{Skill|None, |@{selected|Skill1} (+@{selected|Skill1|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill1}] (@{selected|Skill1|max})|@{selected|Skill2} (+@{selected|Skill2|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill2}] (@{selected|Skill2|max})|@{selected|Skill3} (+@{selected|Skill3|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill3}] (@{selected|Skill3|max})|@{selected|Skill4} (+@{selected|Skill4|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill4}] (@{selected|Skill4|max})|@{selected|Skill5} (+@{selected|Skill5|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill5}] (@{selected|Skill5|max})|@{selected|Skill6} (+@{selected|Skill6|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill6}] (@{selected|Skill6|max})|@{selected|Skill7} (+@{selected|Skill7|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill7}] (@{selected|Skill7|max})|@{selected|Skill8} (+@{selected|Skill8|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill8}] (@{selected|Skill8|max})|@{selected|Skill9} (+@{selected|Skill9|max}%),[using @{selected|Skill9}] (@{selected|Skill9|max})} {{The attempt to ?{Action} ?{Skill} by @{selected|token_name} was [[ 1t[[[floor((?{Action} + ?{Skill} - d100)/29.99)+1]]] ]]}}
August 17 (9 years ago)
Here's one ninth of a new approach for handling modifiers:
?{Modifiers|None, |Skill, &#63;{Skill&#124;None&#44; &#124;@{selected|Skill1} (+@{selected|Skill1|max}%)&#44;[using @{selected|Skill1}] +@{selected|Skill1|max} &amp;#63;{Other Modifiers&amp;#124;None&amp;#44; &amp;#124;Skill&amp;#44; &amp;amp;#63;{Skill 2&amp;amp;#124;None&amp;amp;#44; &amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill1} (+@{selected|Skill1|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill1}] +@{selected|Skill1|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill2} (+@{selected|Skill2|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill2}] +@{selected|Skill2|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill3} (+@{selected|Skill3|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill3}] +@{selected|Skill3|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill4} (+@{selected|Skill4|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill4}] +@{selected|Skill4|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill5} (+@{selected|Skill5|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill5}] +@{selected|Skill5|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill6} (+@{selected|Skill6|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill6}] +@{selected|Skill6|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill7} (+@{selected|Skill7|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill7}] +@{selected|Skill7|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill8} (+@{selected|Skill8|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill8}] +@{selected|Skill8|max}&amp;amp;#124;@{selected|Skill9} (+@{selected|Skill9|max}%)&amp;amp;#44; [and @{selected|Skill9}] +@{selected|Skill9|max}&amp;amp;#125;&amp;#124;Custom&amp;#44; + ((&amp;amp;#63;{Custom&amp;amp;#124;0&amp;amp;#125;))&amp;#125;&#125;|Custom, + ((&#63;{Custom&#124;0&#125;))}

Full macro here.

As always, please let me know your thoughts and, especially, questions.
August 17 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)
There seems to be some corruption in the code you posted.  I'm seeing what looks like character codes in place of characters e.g , #124 and #44
August 17 (9 years ago)
Ziechael
Forum Champion
Sheet Author
API Scripter
Currently drop down queries end at the first paired {} it finds, also anything used as a value that includes | or , would also corrupt the query so the only way around it is to use the html code for those symbols which is why Silvyre's macro looks... interesting :)
August 17 (9 years ago)

Edited August 17 (9 years ago)
Aye, using HTML entities for the aforementioned characters is the currently the only way to nest roll queries within other roll queries; a very useful technique in the optimization of macro functionality. Such macros are certainly not very easy on a coder's eyes (or mind), but players will appreciate their complexity and ease of use, when done right. Play with it a bit and see if the pseudo-recursive method for modifier addition is something that sits well with you.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)
I'm going to say well done in working out using numbers for table names, Never would have occurred to me.

Is there some way to map out what and how different skills combine? You can compound two macros to function as one. For example, To solve a problem I had with Hc Svnt Dracones I divided my roll macros into two parts.

First was "/roll { @{exact_attribute}", I'll call that macro attribute. The second was "+ @{exact_skill}>8", I'll call that macro skill.

By them selves, they they're a incomplete command. When entered as "#attribute #skill" they'd be resolve to the complete command:

/roll {@{exact_attribute} + @{exact_skill}>8

If I can have some firm idea how things are mapped out I think I can give you some macros to account for most skill rolls.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)
On a unrelated note, if your worried about cheating? Macro by default reference the character sheet they're hosted on. They can also be told to referenced the selected token, targeted token, or a exact character sheet. There's a way to hide things.

Let's say you have a character named "bob". You duplicate the bob character sheet. Let's call that one "bob_copy", and lock that one to the GM only. On "bob_copy" you could write a initiative macro called "initiative. At the end add press enter and add something like "/w gm Bob_copy has rolled initiative.".

On "bob" you make a "initiative", except instead of rolling imitative, you have it use the initiative macro you wrote for "bob_copy" by making this macro be "%{bob_copy|initiative}".

As long as the player's "initiative" macro hasn't been tampered with, it will forward the call to the macro and stats stored on "bob_copy" and you'll get the gm whisper "Bob_copy has rolled initiative." If you don't? or get a different message? You know they've tampered with it.

Edit: ... Provided there aren't access issues. Doh!
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)

HarbingerLeo said:

Is there some way to map out what and how different skills combine?

I used this wiki page as a reference when developing some of the macros I posted here. The list of Relevant Skills (which lists skills that corresponds to each standard test) appears very far from complete. To associate each test with a list of "relevant" skills only, I personally would nest a skill list unique to each test within each corresponding section within the ?{Action} roll query. However, that would require working with an attribute for each skill. All 163 of them. That is an ordeal for players to manage as well as for us to implement. Hence why I've instead opted to use 9 "wildcard" attributes for skills and have the roll query containing skills sit separately from ?{Action}.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)
Hm. That's going to take longer then I have tonight, and tomorrow is booked. A specification doesn't look too hard to write up, it's just going to take time to account for all the quirks in all the permutations. I don't foresee in large complications though. I just have to break it down into small enough parts.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)
If you were to focus such efforts toward compiling (or finding) 37 thorough lists of skills, such that each list contains only skills (handpicked from the 163-item master list) that are relevant to each individual standard test, I may just reconsider my stance on using set attributes for each skill. However, before you commit to such a task, I recommend that you ask Didz whether he (and his future players) would prefer to manually input (and edit) one hundred and sixty-three set attributes rather than stick with the current alternative.
Hm? The drop down menu are clever, useful, and something I'd never know about without being show. Don't this it as a insult implied or otherwise, or some kind of argument about what's better, Slvyre. ;) I'm just that OCD with a interesting problem.

You'll see when I'm done. (I hope.) ^.^ The beauty of a modular template is that it can be expanded or stacked adhoc. I can't and don't have to annotate all items in infinity. I just have to build a template that could stack infinitly to include it.
August 18 (9 years ago)
I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Good luck.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)

Silvyre said:

HarbingerLeo said:

Is there some way to map out what and how different skills combine?

I used this wiki page as a reference when developing some of the macros I posted here.
I was wondering how you had suddenly become more knowledgeable about the WFRP test mechanic's during the course of this thread.  Suddenly things started appearing in your macro's that I hadn't told you about, and I was like 'How did Silvye know that?'  I was beginning to wonder if you were closet WFRP fan.

In fact, I'm using that same site as an online reference for my Roll20 game handouts, so it is an accurate representation of the WFRPv1 Core rules.  The Standard Tests list is pretty much identical, as are the Relevant Skills associated with each test.

As you have noted some tests have no relevant skill modifiers associated with them, and so in theory players need not even be asked to select a skill that they want to use.

However, what isn't explicitly mentioned in the table is that there is a sort of global difficulty modifier that allows the GM to add or substract -/+5 -/+10 or +/-20 to the success threshold according to how hard or easy the task is considered to be.

There are also modifiers to some tests which are dependant upon comparative Social/Class Levels and intercharacter relationships.

So, for example a Nobleman (Class A) seeking information from a Craftsman (Class C) would add +20 for success if using their Leadership (Ld) as the basis for the test, and -20 if trying to use their Fellowship.  Were the situation reversed, and the Craftsman were trying to get information out of a Nobleman then using their Leadership to order them to tell you isn't even an option, and trying to beg for it using your Fellowship would be done with a -5 penalty per class division e.g. -10 in this case.

Other considerations like Race/Cult Relations and Class Distinction are also used to modify tests based on Fellowship and Leadership.

Dwarf's and Elves don't get along in WFRP so any tests involving Fel or Ld between a dwarf and an elf get a -10 penalty.
http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Social_Level
Similarly Ulrican and Sigmarite worshippers distrust each other and will suffer -5 penalties to all Fel and Ld tests

But whether one wants that level of detail included in the macro is debateable.  To deal with Social Level modifications would require either the ability to interogate character sheets and do comparisons between inputs from Tester & Target, or another set of queries asking for Social Class information.  It's probably easier just to prompt for a Social Class modifier and let the players decide what it should be.  They will know their characters social standing and will be able to judge that of the character they are dealing with by their attire.

Automating such modifications would also override some of the roleplay options, such as the Class C charlatan who is pretending to be a Noble in order blather his way into a ball.  The modification to his success roll would not be based on the social standing recorded on his character sheet, but upon the ability of the Equery to see through his disquise.  If the Equery fails to do so then the charlatan will gain the full Ld bonus afforded to a noleman even though he isn't one.

Character Sheets
it might also be worth mentionig that there is a WFRPv2 Character Sheet on Roll20.

In fact, I did try and use it for my game at first, but discovered i wasn't really suitable.  Nevertheless, the rule mechanic's of WFRPv1 and v2 share a lot of similarities.

I think the big issue in terms of a global macro really hinge on resolving two questions:
  1. Which skills are relevant to this type of test?
  2. Does the character taking the test have those skills?
If that were possible then we have a scenario where a macro could ask:

What action do you wish to take: (Gossip)
Who do you wish to gossip with: (Target)
Enter Social Modifer: (say one class difference +10)
Enter Difficulty modifier: (say its a hard test -10)
(Macro checks relevant skills)
Which skill do you wish to use? (e.g. lets assume the character has both Charm and Wit, and choses Wit +10%)
(Macro runs test and determines Degree of Success)
Gossip Test: Erica uses her wit to gossip with Hans but botches it.

 

August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)

Didz said:

But whether one wants that level of detail included in the macro is debateable.  To deal with Social Level modifications would require either the ability to interogate character sheets and do comparisons between inputs from Tester & Target

It would not. It would require arranging fragment(s) or groups of fragments of a command in such a way that string together to form exactly what is required on demand.

In my example of a HSD(Hc Svnt Dracones) macro the command was broken into two part and each part assigned a macro. If I were to list them all there are some 50different macros that pair up in groups of two to form 600 unique combinations. Each looking up the number of dice to roll, the type of dice to roll, and any modifiers for that roll. I could sub-divide my two half macros into much longer strings of much smaller parts, or insert a unlimited number of macros between them if I wanted to complicate them then is required.

What I have planned is a variation of nesting macros. Instead of running two complete macros one after the other? It's just combining the correct number of fragments in the correct order to form a single command. It's just going to take me time to catalog the size(s) and type of fragments needed. Then find a way to make them easy to use.
August 18 (9 years ago)
Ok! Well your the expert.  I shall wait with baited breath to see what you come up with.

I am still wondering how much can actually be achieved without a character sheet.  My original assumption was that having a character sheet set-up was pretty much essential to producing any advanced macros, and whilst Silvye has worked wonders already without one I'm still thinking that there must be a limit.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)

Didz said:

I was beginning to wonder if you were closet WFRP fan.

There's a good chance I might become one after our business is concluded.


Didz said:

I think the big issue in terms of a global macro really hinge on resolving two questions:
  1. Which skills are relevant to this type of test?
  2. Does the character taking the test have those skills?

I realize now that I've been underestimating just how important the exclusion of nonoptions regarding skills are to your needs. Unfortunately, my current approach is wholly incompatible with the (Macro checks relevant skills) step of your idealized process, which governs such exclusion. I am absolutely willing to alter my approach given that you are. This alteration hinges on a requirement that I would not normally dare to ask of anyone.

That requirement is adding up to 163 Attributes, one for every skill that you deem to be potentially relevant to any given test.

If you choose to do so, I would be willing to alter my macro to follow the same path, which would allow for that single macro to do all you have outlined and more.

Didz said:

I am still wondering how much can actually be achieved without a character sheet.  My original assumption was that having a character sheet set-up was pretty much essential to producing any advanced macros

In regards to complex macros, the value of character sheets does not generally extend past its functions for generating and storing Attributes. If you were to fulfill the (rather extreme) aforementioned requirement, the Attributes & Abilities tab of the Character on which you have input all of those Attributes would become (when duplicated) a more vital tool toward your purposes than any character sheet could hope to be—as I'm certain that no character sheet would dare to add anywhere close to 163 non-repeating skill fields.
August 18 (9 years ago)
Diana P
Pro
Sheet Author
as I'm certain that no character sheet would dare to add anywhere close to 163 non-repeating skill fields.

Hehe.  I know there's at least one character sheet out there with a few more than 163 non-repeating skills- the RMSS one (it has 300ish). :)  But then I kind of figured that that was a key advantage of making a character sheet (especially prior to the roll-templates).

August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)

Silvyre said:

That requirement is adding up to 163 Attributes, one for every skill that you deem to be potentially relevant to any given test.


What exactly would you need me to do.

Getting a list of all 163 skills is not that hard to do as they are all listed on the Wikia.
http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Skills

Likewise flagging those that actually influence a standard test is pretty straight forward as you've already seen the list of relevant skills associated with the 37 Standard Tests.
http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Tests

But are you saying I need to create an attribute on my Roll20 Master Character Journal for every skill that affects a test?

So basically instead of the generic skill slots Skill1 thru Skill9 I would be adding specific attributes for Charm; Wit, Seduction, Comedian etc.
Even though most characters would only have a handfull of those skills available to them.
August 18 (9 years ago)

Edited August 18 (9 years ago)

Didz said:

But are you saying I need to create an attribute on my Roll20 Master Character Journal for every skill that affects a test?

Precisely; this approach requires that any who use the macro have access to a Character complete with listings for every single Attribute used anywhere at all in the macro. If an Attribute is missing, an error message will be generated (you experienced this earlier).

Under the Name fields of every such Attribute, you would input the name of the skill (i.e. Acrobatics, Acting, AcuteHearing, etc.).
Under each of the Current fields, you would simply input 0
Later, players would search for the Attribute for the skills they acquire and substitute 0 for the magnitude of their current skill modifiers (i.e. 15, 26, 41, etc.)
The Max fields will not be used, and can be left untouched.

I would also ask that you research and compile ~37 lists of skills—one list for each test or action that you would like characters to have access to. The lists on the aforementioned wiki page help, here, but some are or may not be entirely complete; you would need to fill in the gaps.


Diana P said:

as I'm certain that no character sheet would dare to add anywhere close to 163 non-repeating skill fields.

Hehe.  I know there's at least one character sheet out there with a few more than 163 non-repeating skills- the RMSS one (it has 300ish). :)

That's rather frightening.

August 19 (9 years ago)

Edited August 19 (9 years ago)

Silvyre said:

Precisely; this approach requires that any who use the macro have access to a Character complete with listings for every single Attribute used anywhere at all in the macro. If an Attribute is missing, an error message will be generated (you experienced this earlier).


Under the Name fields of every such Attribute, you would input the name of the skill (i.e. Acrobatics, Acting, AcuteHearing, etc.).
Under each of the Current fields, you would simply input 0
Later, players would search for the Attribute for the skills they acquire and substitute 0 for the magnitude of their current skill modifiers (i.e. 15, 26, 41, etc.)
The Max fields will not be used, and can be left untouched.

I would also ask that you research and compile ~37 lists of skills—one list for each test or action that you would like characters to have access to. The lists on the aforementioned wiki page help, here, but some are or may not be entirely complete; you would need to fill in the gaps.
That's actually not as onerous as it sounds.  In fact, I'm already halfway there in that I've been listing all the skills in excel and cross-referencing them with tests as part of my GM prepration.  That's actually how I knew there were 163 skills.

However, there may be a problem, and so I'll point this out before we put all the effort in just in case it invalidates the whole scheme.

The issues is that as I've been going through the list identifying which skills affect which tests I've identified that not all skills affect all tests to a consistent degree.

The classic example are two we have already touched upon, namely Concealment-Urban and Concealment - Rural.  These two skills add a +10% modifier to Hide Tests when used in an appropriate setting.  So, a character hiding in the street will gain +10% if they invoke their Concealment -Urban skill.  But.....if they move then it only adds +5% to their hidden movement test.

So simply creating a Skill Attribute and giving it a fixed skill modifier value isn't appropriate for every skill.  Most of them are fixed, but not all..  

August 19 (9 years ago)
Hold the boat. All this time I've been assuming that skills could be improved. That is to say, their modifiers to certain tests could be, through some process, raised by a player.

Am I wrong?
Where are race relations stored? (For animosity, hatred, and such.)
Additional questions:

1) The table on the wiki lists a number of "standard" tests. I'm probably going to make a basic behind the scenes mechanic and then create simple wrappers that do all the heavy lifting. One for each standard test. Do you require more examples or macros then that?

2) How are existing skills stored on the character sheets? That is are they stored as a "present/ not present" value or do they store the exact modifier they give to a test?
August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)

Silvyre said:

Hold the boat. All this time I've been assuming that skills could be improved. That is to say, their modifiers to certain tests could be, through some process, raised by a player.

Am I wrong?
The only skill that can be improved is Pickpocket, all the others are a one shot deal.  Players spend their XP buying career advances which add to their base attributes, so you can increase your characters Fellowship, but not their Charm skill.

The difference with Pickpocket is that that you can take the skill more than once. 

August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)

HarbingerLeo said:

Where are race relations stored? (For animosity, hatred, and such.)
A characters race is recorded on their character sheet.  The relationship is recorded on the Race Relations Table e.g. Dwarves always hate Goblins.

Cult Relations are shown on the Cult Relations Table.

Character specific relations will be recorded on their character sheet, either as reputations,(e.g. Hates members of the Merchant Guild)  or as insanities. e.g. Pathelogical hatred of spiders. or Hates women.

Social Standing is also recorded on the character sheet in the format A5 (Noble of 5 standing)  B10 (Professional of 10 standing  C8 (Craftsman of 8 standing)  D4 (Labourer of 4 standing).  Standing indicates ones standing with other people of the same class and indicate pecking order amongst people of the same class.  If standing drops to 0 thne there is a risk of the character dropping a class.  The maximum standing for non-Nobles is 20, but Nobles can have infinate social standing.  If a character drops below D0, then they are forced to become a Begger, and must spend 100XP to but themselves a new Class D career. 

August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)
I must report  partial failure, and this annoys me. I hit a limit of Roll20. I'm not sure if it's by design, bug, or oversight. It will not recursively replace macro commands.

The basic layout of my template is made of up a modifier and two macro. #begin which is literally '1t[Floor((d100 - (' and '#end' which is ') ) / -30)]'. Basically it's the old pass/fail macro already given divided in two so something can be inserted between the two halves. I don't know if your familiar with command line documentation, but the format for these macros is:

#begin <attribute> (<modifier>) #end

Which is it will at it's most base always start with '#begin', have something to function as a attribute value, may have something to modify that value, and always end with '#end'.  The plan was to have a macro be a wrapper for all of that. For example #animosity was planned to unfold something like this:

#animosity
#begin @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} #end
1t[Floor((d100 - ( @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} ) ) / -30)]

It stops short of fully unfolding. I still have a plan for the relationship thing, but can't find the tables on the wiki or the exact character sheet in question.
August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)

HarbingerLeo said:


#animosity
#begin @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} #end
1t[Floor((d100 - ( @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} ) ) / -30)]

I'm not sure if this is my fault for not explaining things clearly, or a corruption of the requirement caused by over familiarity with the D&D game mechnaic's but I'm worried now that both Silvyre and yourself are wasting effort trying to come up with a solution to a requirement that doesn't exist in WFRP.

So let me be very clear:   Skills do NOT have levels in WFRP.

In WFRP a character either has a skill or they don't, it's a straightforward Yes or No answer. Likewise your character either has Animosity towards another or it doesn't.  There are no degree's of animosity to consider.  [Not that Animosity is a skill anyway, animosity is actually a form of insanity which a character is cursed with and forces them to take an Animosity Test on every encounter with that type of creature to avoid attacking it.]

Skills can be acquired by changing careers, and then paying XP to acquire a specific Career Skill.

So if for example my character wanted to learn how to be more charming when dealing with other characters.  He could acquire the Charm Skill by spending 100XP to become a Charlatan, and then learning the Charm Skill, which is part of that jobs Career Advance Scheme.
http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Charlatan

But once he has that advance, thats it.  He can't get it again, because he already has it.  So if the character were to change career again to become say a Minstrel  http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Minstrel even though Minstrel has Charm in it's Career Advance Scheme my character cannot earn that skill again as he already has it.  There is no such thing as Charm Level 2  in WFRP

So, having a Skill delivers a FIXED modifier to those tests it is relevant to e.g. Charm always adds 10% to a Gossip Test (if the character has Charm)  The only variation that occurs is dependant upon the type of test being taken. So some skills give say a +10% bonus to one type of Test and only a +5% bonus to others.

The only exception to this is Pickpocket, which in theory is a skill a character can earn more than once, but personally that has never happened in one of my games.  And if it did I would probably consider the it to be a new skill rather than a level of an existing one. e.g. Pickpocket, Dipper, Fingersmith.  with an increasing bonus on each.

So, in terms of pure logic the bonus does not need to be stored as a variable, because it won't vary.  The bonus itself could be hard coded into the macro as a fixed modifier which is dependant upon the existence of a skill.  e.g. Gossip is d100 vs the character Fel +10% if the character has Charm.  Likewise, because th bonus given is usually limited to +5%, +10%, +15% or +20% the existence of relevant skills could be considered a condition of granting the bonus.  So, some like add +10% if the character has either Charm, Wit or Seduction, or +15% if they have Comedian or Acting.

I have no idea if that makes life harder or easier when writing macros, but thats how it works.



August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)

Didz said:

HarbingerLeo said:


#animosity
#begin @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} #end
1t[Floor((d100 - ( @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} ) ) / -30)]

I'm not sure if this is my fault for not explaining thing clearly[...]Ihave no idea if that makes life harder or easier when writing macros, but thats how it works.


Hm? That skills were a fixed modifier was understood from the read. I just needed to know if I did add or subtract a skill if it would add or subtract the 10% 20% represented, or add or subtract a one or zero. (Moot at the moment.)

The -"Animosity Level" was to increase the difficulty as define here. It was defined variable so I made it variable. No skills are here as the wiki defines no applicable skills. Not the point I failed to convey.

I was trying to make a "#animosity" macro for the animosity test as defined by the wiki to wrap everything up in a single macro. Doesn't work as I planned.

The #animosity macro should have expanded to:
#begin @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} #end
Which should have expanded to:
1t[Floor((d100 - ( @{Cl} - ?{Animosity Level} ) ) / -30)]

It does not. My idea to nest macros failed as is. That was all.
August 20 (9 years ago)

HarbingerLeo said:

Additional questions:

1) The table on the wiki lists a number of "standard" tests. I'm probably going to make a basic behind the scenes mechanic and then create simple wrappers that do all the heavy lifting. One for each standard test. Do you require more examples or macros then that?

2) How are existing skills stored on the character sheets? That is are they stored as a "present/ not present" value or do they store the exact modifier they give to a test?
  1. In addition to the Standard tests ther are Improvised Test, Combined Tests and Opposed Tests but these tend to be devised by the GM more or less on the fly, so creating macros for them would be difficult.  My aim was just to automate the Standard Tests, and to be honest some of those are used so rarely it probably not woth the effort.  The big ones are those that are used repeatedly by both the players and the GM.  Namely, Bargain; Bribe; Estimate; Gossip; Listen; and Observe. One of those gets rolled pretty much in every incident either by the players or the GM.
  2. In the tabletop game skills are just written on the character sheets once they are acquired, much as they are shown on the Career Advance Schemes I linked earlier. http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Minstrel .  So if that was a character playing a Minstrel he would have the skills Charm; Etiquette; Musicianship; Public Speaking and Sing.  The modifier they give to a test is not stored at all, as it can vary from test to test.

August 20 (9 years ago)

HarbingerLeo said:

The -"Animosity Level" was to increase the difficulty as define here. It was defined variable so I made it variable. No skills are here as the wiki defines no applicable skills. Not the point I failed to convey.

Thats not a test to determine difficulty.  Thats a table used to determine who the character develops unreasoning hatred against.  So if a character is deemed to have gone a bit insane and developed an unreasonable hatred against something the player rolls against that table to determine who or what that hatred is directed against.  e.g a roll 1D100=13 would result in Erica developing Animosity towards all men.

The insanity rules actually state that whenever possible Animosity should be directed logically as the cause of the insanity.  So, that table would only be used in situations where there was no obvious target for the animosity.  For example: all dwarves have animosity towards Orc's and Goblins for a reason, so there would be no need to roll for that.  If a half-orc (not that such a thing exists in WFRP) were to walk into a tavern every dwarf in the room would roll an animosity check as soon as they saw it.

Having acquired that insanity the test itself is simple.  Every time she meets a new man, she has to roll an Animosity Test (1d100 vs Cl) , and if she fails she attacks him.  Simple as that really, there are no modifiers on that test.  He just has to hope she unarmed at the time.   
August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)
As Silvyre requested I have been through the list of Standard Tests again and either clarified or removed the ambiguous ones:  The revised list is as follows:
Action Test against Relevant Skills
Animosity Cl
Bargain Fel Charm, Haggle, Seduction
Bluff Fel Acting, Charm, Clown, Jester, Public Speaking,Seduction, Wit
Boat Handling (Int + I)/2 Row, Sailing, River Lore
Bribe 100 -WP
Busk Fel various e.g. Acrobatics; Acting; Art; Clown; Comedian; Contortionist; Dance; Escapology; Fire Eating; Juggle; Mime; Mimic; Musicianship; Palmistry; Sing; Story Telling; Strongman. Having any one of the above will add +10% to Busking Tests, but then if you don't have any of the above what exactly are you doing Busking anyway.
Construct Dex Boat Building, Carpentry, Engineering, Mining,Smithing, Stoneworking
Disease T x 10 Immunity To Disease
Employment special -not suitable for a macro test. What one is actually doing is seeking a license to provide services either from an employer or the local authorities. Which involves a lot of effort that cannot be covered by a single test. Also strictly speaking securing regular employment would end the characters adventure career. Depends on population of the settlement and other factors such as relationship with the employer. Can be ignored for macro purposes
Estimate Int Evaluate, Follow Trail, Super Numerate
Fall special -depends on the distance character fell or was thrown.
(Input distance in yards) - 1d6 (+2 for Acrobatics) result is number of wounds sustained.
Acrobatics - 
Fear Cl
Frenzy Cl
Gambling special- Opposed Test where each player rolls 1D100, highest score wins. The House adds anything up to +60 to their roll as dictated by the GM. Those with Gambling add their 50% of their [Int] to their roll. Characters may also declare they are cheating, in which case they add their full [Int] to their roll. However, if any cheating is going on the GM will roll secret Observation Tests for every hand to decide if any of the other players notice. Gamble - (+Int/2)
If the player declares they are cheating (+Int)
GM must then roll Observation Tests to see if they are caught.
Gossip Fel Acting, Bribery, Charm, Comedian, Public Speaking, Seduction, Story Telling, Wit
Hatred Cl
Hide I + Cl - enemy I Concealment: Rural, Concealment: Urban,Shadowing
Hypnotism WP
Interrogate WP Torture
Jump special - Identical to Fall above. Acrobatics
Leap special - Characters can leap [M*2]yds-1D6. If the distance rolled is less than the gap they fall. Acrobatics adds 2 yards to the distance . Acrobatics
Listen Soft: 30% Acute Hearing, Silent Move: Rural, Silent Move: Urban
Normal: 60%
Loud: 100%
Loyalty Ld Bribery
Magic WP
Observe I
Pick Lock Dex - lock rating Pick Lock
Pick Pocket Dex Pick Pocket
Poison T x 10 Immunity To Poison
Problem Solving Int
Reaction I
Risk Base 50% A modifier to this test will be agreed between the player and the GM based on the degree of risk involved.
Search I
Rapid Search I
Sneak 30% Concealment: Rural, Concealment: Urban, Silent Move: Rural, Silent Move: Urban
Strength S x 10
Stupidity Int
Terror Cl
Understand Language Int Linguistics
Notes:

Employment Test - This is listed as a standard test but I don't think i've ever used it.  For an adventurer to take a permanent job is pretty much retirement from adventuring and usually happens when a player wants to bow out of the game.  So a test is pretty pointless.  In one of my games a halfling thief decided to accept a job as a cook on a river barge because his player was too busy IRL to carry on with the game, but I didn't make him roll a test to get the job.  

A character may want to get a job just as a ploy to gain information or access to an area, but that would involve a lot of roleplay and other ploys to convince his would be employer to take him on, and would hardly be decided by a single dice roll.

Gambling Test -  The gambling test itself is just the roll of 1d100 for every round of betting.  The complication lies in the activity and roleplaying of the characters involved in the game, and again I can't see a single macro coping with the entire process and what it might throw up.  It would be something like how many characters are playing, which of them are cheating, did anyone notice who was cheating etc.
 
August 20 (9 years ago)
Didz, thank you for your clarifications. Your dedication is appreciated and will be soon rewarded.
August 20 (9 years ago)

Edited August 20 (9 years ago)

Silvyre said:

Didz, thank you for your clarifications. Your dedication is appreciated and will be soon rewarded.

Thanks, I'm sorry it's been so confusing.

Some tests like the Busk Test look really complex with all those Relevant Skills, but then when you look at them basically all that the GM is doing is asking the player if he has any skills that he could use to entertain people and if the answer is yes then they get +10% to busking.  Of course as I said in the table quite what a character would do as a busking activity of they had no entertainment skills is a bit of a puzzle.  If they just started asking for money from passers by that's Begging not Busking. I'm still trying to think of some real world example of busking without providing entertainment.  
Hi Didz,
I wonder whether you have given any thought to implementing the WFRP critical hit charts? I was thinking of using the rollable list function, but realised that this would mean a separate set of charts for every hit level, so for six hit levels and 4 body locations that would be 24 separate charts, or 72 charts if I want to have different criticals for different types of damage (cut/concussion/missile)! Did you have any better ideas?
Mark
August 27 (9 years ago)

Edited August 27 (9 years ago)
I've not really given it that much thought to be honest.

In fact, until I can establish a reliable macro system for the standard tests I wasn't even going to begin to tackle the issue of combat itself.  Nevertheless, It does seem sensible to have some sort of rollable table system for determining the effect of a critical hit.

The WFRPv1 booklet includes seven groupings based on weapon types:
e.g. Sharp Weapons, Blunt weapons; Teeth & claws; Arrows and bolts; Firearms; Falling & crushing and Fire and energy.

Each with four location based tables:
e.g. Arm; Head, Body and Leg

So, 28 lists in total.

Whether it's actually worth typing in or copying all that descriptive detail to Roll20 or not is uncertain, but at the very least I would like a damage macro to determine if a critical hit has occurred and if so what body location is hit, the critical level of the wound and which description applies.

e.g. The macro ought to be able to produce an output something like:  

Clem Shirestock has suffered a +3 critical to his left arm (Critical Hit Roll (1d100) = 45)  Read description 14. 

Clem Shirestock must break off combat and try to flee (if possible).

The GM could then read desciption 14 from the critical hit results for clems left arm and inform the player that his characters left arm has been severed from his body at the shoulder and that his blood is gushing in a cascade from the open wound. Anything being carried by that arm has obviously been dropped and Clem has collapsed unconscious and will lose D6 wounds per turn until someone manages to staunch the blood loss or he dies.  So, pretty much dead unless a healer is on hand.

So, if we were to forget trying to cram all the decriptive text into the macro we could just get away with six tables.  One for each of the Critical Levels +1 thru +6.  Each of which would have 10 possible outcomes and descriptive references.  Although a +6 critical is always instant death anyway so the descriptive text is just for adding colour to the scene.
Roll Critical Level
1D100 1 2 3 4 5 6
01-10 1 3 5 7 11 14
11-20 2 4 6 9 13 15
21-30 3 5 8 14 16 16
31-40 4 7 10 13 15 15
41-50 5 9 14 16 16 16
51-60 7 12 15 15 15 15
61-70 9 16 16 16 16 16
71-80 11 15 15 15 15 15
81-90 16 16 16 16 16 16
91-00 15 15 15 15 15 15
August 29 (9 years ago)

Edited August 29 (9 years ago)
Ok, Time to test my assertions because I'm dense enough I still can't find the exact character sheet. If the following global macros exist:

_test:
1t[Floor((d100 - (
_test_end:
)) / -30)]
_Fel:
@{Fel}
_bluff_mod:
+(@{Acting}*10)+(@{Charm}*10)+(@{Clown}*10)+(@{Jester}*10)+(@{Public Speaking}*10)+(@{Seduction}*10)+(@{Wit}*10)

Then, the follow bluff ability roll on a character sheet may work for a bluff check:
#_test #_Fel #_bluff_mod #_test_end

You may want to test _bluff_mod on it's own, or adjust for the +1 (fence post error) you talked about earlier. I can't find a exact match for a talked about character sheet to test this my self.
August 30 (9 years ago)

HarbingerLeo said:

_bluff_mod:
+(@{Acting}*10)+(@{Charm}*10)+(@{Clown}*10)+(@{Jester}*10)+(@{Public Speaking}*10)+(@{Seduction}*10)+(@{Wit}*10)

Didz said:
Whether a relevant skill can be applied to a test is a GM decision, and generally only one skill can be used per test. But there may be occasions when players successfully argue that they are entitled to combine more than one skill to boost there chance of success.