I'm considering using this kind of system, similar to the fudge dice. Add d6 to skill then subtract d6, but it seems entirely too random.
If you have a skill of 5 and the difficulty is even one less you really aren't at a particularly good advantage. Am I missing something here?
With only two dice you have a fairly staggered distribution with a wide range of values.
Here's the probabilities for d6-d6 - http://anydice.com/program/20da
You actually have a 72% chance of rolling at least -1, so you are OK at basic skills.
The thing to remember about Fudge dice is that the actual printed dice are essentially d3s, and so the range of values is smaller. The classic 4dF is actually 4d3-8. That creates much more reliability in the centre zone - over 60% of rolls will be between -1 and +1 (http://anydice.com/program/20db).
d4-d4 might work better for you if you're happy to lose the extremes?
-1 still means you fail at actions with a difficulty the same as your skill.
it just feels wrong.
Well then I guess the question becomes:
- What % of the time should people perform at their skill level in your game (and should this % vary by skill level)?
- What degree of variance in performance above and beyond their skill level are you looking for?
it doesn't seem like a very heroic system. Perhaps more suited to 'reality'.
I want the hero to have a decent chance to pop the enemy if the enemy is more skilled. I can't put an exct percentage on it, but it seems that with this system a guy of skill 5 fights a guy of skill 6 - not a huge difference (at least represented numerically) - and he is going to fail more often than not because the dice average at +0.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644349it doesn't seem like a very heroic system. Perhaps more suited to 'reality'.
I want the hero to have a decent chance to pop the enemy if the enemy is more skilled. I can't put an exct percentage on it, but it seems that with this system a guy of skill 5 fights a guy of skill 6 - not a huge difference (at least represented numerically) - and he is going to fail more often than not because the dice average at +0.
Yeah, pretty much. A lot of Fudge variants make combat an opposed roll for this reason.
EDIT: That being said, d6-d6 does give you a 40% chance to roll at least +1, which is a fairly solid number.
d6-d6 gives the same distribution curve as 2d6, barring other peculiarities (like having the negative die and positive die explode separately, as in Feng Shui).
Overall its probably easier to do that, and use [stat + 7] to get target number, since it means not having to designate which is +/- before rolling.
Not what you were asking I know, sorry...
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644346-1 still means you fail at actions with a difficulty the same as your skill.
it just feels wrong.
"Don't roll the dice unless both success and failure could be interesting, or the character is in a stressful situation".
Job done. Don't bother going to the mechanics unless you need to.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;644359d6-d6 gives the same distribution curve as 2d6, barring other peculiarities (like having the negative die and positive die explode separately, as in Feng Shui).
Overall its probably easier to do that, and use [stat + 7] to get target number, since it means not having to designate which is +/- before rolling.
And the player who always forgets which is which, or rolls two dice the same colour and style...
I've played around a bit with d4-d4, which goes form -3 to +3 instead of the -5 to +5 of d6-d6 so it's a bit more predictable. d4-d4 has a similar distribution to 4 Fudge dice, except the latter has a 1/81 for -4 (and same for +4).
I like the idea of d#-d#. Think of it as your good luck minus your bad luck.
Just thought - if you want something not quite as zero biased, maybe try something like d6-d4 instead?
Unfortunately I much prefer symmetry. I'd rather not use things like that.
What about +2d6-2d6 ?
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644349it doesn't seem like a very heroic system. Perhaps more suited to 'reality'.
I want the hero to have a decent chance to pop the enemy if the enemy is more skilled. I can't put an exact percentage on it, but it seems that with this system a guy of skill 5 fights a guy of skill 6 - not a huge difference (at least represented numerically) - and he is going to fail more often than not because the dice average at +0.
Well, I'll point out that ICONS uses this system, and it's pretty heroic from what I've heard. (I've read the system, but not played it.) Perhaps include some FUDGE/FATE points to allow for occasional +2 or rerolls? As it is, you've got a 40% chance of rolling a +1 or better - that's not bad for going up against someone better than you are.
One more thing to keep in mind is the scale of the skills (or ability + skills) that serve as the base matters. +/-5 is a big deal with abilities rated 1-4, but not so much if the rating is 1-20.
If your using 1d6-1d6, it means if you have an Average Skill and attempt a task of Average Difficulty, you will succeed most of the time.
I don't see the issue tbh.
The Babylon Project used this exact system, although its kind of hard to pick up a copy these days.
on a +/-5 scale, what range should the stats be?
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644401on a +/-5 scale, what range should the stats be?
I'd probably go for a 10 point scale at least, maybe 12 or 14.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644401on a +/-5 scale, what range should the stats be?
That would depend on myriad other factors: The Babylon Project for example had stats of 1-10, with skills adding 2 points more.
So in +5/-5 you can almost approximate that by simply deducting 6.
That said, I would pretty much avoid a game that had +5/-5 scaling regardless of what dice it used, because I don't really like negative stats.
Part of me wants to have opposed dice rolls (for opposed actions at least) because that way, if the hero is being attacked for example, the player at least feels he is in control, rather than being passive and watching the GM roll.
How do other's feel about this?
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644441Part of me wants to have opposed dice rolls (for opposed actions at least) because that way, if the hero is being attacked for example, the player at least feels he is in control, rather than being passive and watching the GM roll.
How do other's feel about this?
Well, that works pretty well. Of course, given that the rolls are 0-centered you could just always have the player roll either way - if they're attacking then they roll with their attack skill vs the npc's defense, or when defending they can roll their defense vs. the npc's attack.
I've had some success with |d6-d6| -- all results are positive but it has a nifty curve since it's reflected and summed around zero. It's a cool curve to exploit for all kinds of things.This works for FATE because it's not really a "roll to succeed" system but rather a "set the price of success system" so the negative part of the traditional curve is not essential.
Yes, one of the huge advantages of d6-d6 is that having an opposed roll is statistically going to statistically be the exact same as just using the opponent's stat/skill/whatever as the difficulty. So as a GM you can pretty much choose who rolls on the fly.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644341I'm considering using this kind of system, similar to the fudge dice. Add d6 to skill then subtract d6, but it seems entirely too random.
There were some alternates used by Fudge early on using only d6 that were more zoro-centered. Try, for example, making the result 0 if either did shows a 6. It creates a spike at 0, gives a Fudge +/-4 range, and produces some pretty nice opposed roll odds. The problem is that it requires some thought to interpret properly.
Quote from: jadrax;644461Yes, one of the huge advantages of d6-d6 is that having an opposed roll is statistically going to statistically be the exact same as just using the opponent's stat/skill/whatever as the difficulty. So as a GM you can pretty much choose who rolls on the fly.
You won't get the same result range, which matters if you want to interpret a d use degree of success. If both characters have a rating of 0, a one sided role will produce a degree of success range of +/-5 with a +/-5 roll but a +/-10 success range with both sides rolling.
Quote from: John Morrow;644470You won't get the same result range, which matters if you want to interpret a d use degree of success.
True.
I had forgotten some people are mad enough to want to do that. ;o)
not being able to settle on a suitable game system is really frying my brain.
even the demise of satan's handmaiden cannot ease the burden.
I think I do like that with d6-d6, you could potentially step up or down the variability of the check for certain tasks if you wanted (d4-d4 for an arm wrestle, d8-d8 for fishing or gambling?)
Quote from: John Morrow;644470You won't get the same result range, which matters if you want to interpret a d use degree of success. If both characters have a rating of 0, a one sided role will produce a degree of success range of +/-5 with a +/-5 roll but a +/-10 success range with both sides rolling.
You could have both sides rolling just a d6 ?
There was a Doctor Who game that used higher minus lower (0-5 result). Basically, anything less than your rating was assumed successful; you rolled only vs. targets equal to or greater than it.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;644496not being able to settle on a suitable game system is really frying my brain.
even the demise of satan's handmaiden cannot ease the burden.
Try just thinking of what probabilities you want for things, saving minutia of what dice to use until you've got that settled (if it even turns out to make a difference at all).
d4-d4 (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/3197/d4-d4-Main-Book?it=1), the rpg ninjas fear.
Quote from: Phillip;645988Try just thinking of what probabilities you want for things, saving minutia of what dice to use until you've got that settled (if it even turns out to make a difference at all).
I 'm not sure how to work that out.
I was assuming Attribute + Skill with each going up to 5, so 2-10.
That seems a reasonable width, not too much so the players can't see the progression of their character, but not too small so everyone is the same.
What I mean is, think first in terms of the phenomenon you want to model.
For example, suppose I want to have a Strength factor set a weight that can be lifted easily (twice as much to the waist as above the head), with twice as much being a chancy attempt.
One way to do that is with weight factors that double every 5 points: say, 100kg at 10, 200kg at 15, 400kg at 20.
A d6-d6 (higher minus lower) roll could be used, requiring a sum of that and the applicable Strength factor at least equal to the weight factor involved.
The number plugged in from the strength side and then modified for circumstance could be identical with the basic Strength score, but need not be. Perhaps I will find it more convenient for other purposes to have the basic Strength score be on a different scale, and map it to a table of weight-lifting factors.