I've got a mechanic I want to develop further, but right now it hums perfectly if I keep stat and skill ranges limited to 3-  stats range from 1-3, skills range from 1-3.

Mechanically it's great for what I'm doing, but I worry it has a bad....I dunno the term. Mechanical mouthfeel?

As a player, would you feel awkward or limited in a system in which everybody bad has a 1, everybody average has a 2, and everybody excellent has a 3 in whatever stat is being considered?

I'm keeping it small because it's a dice pool system- these numbers determine how many dice are rolled, so I don't want it too big.

The other obvious problem is advancement- it's hard to have a sense of gradual improvement when things can only be improved once (or twice at most). I think I've got that covered through the 'gear' aspect of the game, though.

That is too narrow a range for me.

Hm. I suppose if I stopped adding stat + skill to get a dice pool, I could have stats and skills individually range from 1-6 and not screw anything up.  Will need a new untrained skill roll rule though.

Whatever the range, the players want their PCs to have the maximum or close to maximum.

Thus, if your range is -3 to +3, the players want +2s and +3s. A +0 is a bummer.

If your range is -5 to +5, then a +0 is considered really bad, not average.

It's why I like S&W's -1 to +1.  There isn't a huge loss if you have a +0.

Players always want the max bonus, and it weird but many players freak out if their PC isn't uber exceptional in ability scores. Not just compared to normals, but compared to other PCs and major NPCs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;889597Whatever the range, the players want their PCs to have the maximum or close to maximum.

Thus, if your range is -3 to +3, the players want +2s and +3s. A +0 is a bummer.

If your range is -5 to +5, then a +0 is considered really bad, not average.

It's why I like S&W's -1 to +1.  There isn't a huge loss if you have a +0.

Players always want the max bonus, and it weird but many players freak out if their PC isn't uber exceptional in ability scores. Not just compared to normals, but compared to other PCs and major NPCs.

I think it's because in most games, stats are tied to % chance of success.   If I design a character that's going to be spending most of his time shooting a bow, I want to know I'm not going to miss 75% of the time.  If there was more of a gradient between "You accomplish exactly what you set out to do" and "You don't do anything except waste our time, and now it's somebody else's turn" in most games, people may be less concerned with having peak capabilities.

We've been using narrow stat ranges in our games for ages and they've worked fine (but we use a dice pool system). I think a lot of it depends on the system particulars. In our case we have a skill based game with 0-3 ranks in a skill (and one rank representing the number of dice you roll in the pool, with 0 indicating 2d10 take the lowest result). There are also expertise, which add a die under their conditions, creating an effective range of 0-4. On top of that are bonuses, which can bring it up to 6d10 (our soft cap). The reason for the narrow range is to keep the dice pools under control. But in more high powered versions of the game, we've been experimenting with allowing skills to go up to 4-6 ranks  (it has worked fairly well).

What I will say is this, narrow ranges are a tough sell. Selling a narrow range to Savage Worlds players is easy, but for players who prefer games like D&D (particularly 3E) it can be harder. So just be aware of that going in.

It's funny that narrow stat ranges would be a hard sell on D&D players when for all practical purposes the stats in that game range from -4 to +4.

Quote from: Agkistro;889912It's funny that narrow stat ranges would be a hard sell on D&D players when for all practical purposes the stats in that game range from -4 to +4.

I don't think it is that funny. That is still 9 increments (which isn't overly narrow) and it does depend on the edition (in earlier editions an attribute roll was under the attribute itself so there is more granularity with the numbers). The numbers also influence other things (not just modifiers). Also, the Attributes can keep going past +4, and in a 3E you have the skill slots. So I do think the overall feel is one of having lots of increments.

Either way though, if you are trying to sell people on a game, I think it starts with respecting their established preferences. We're the ones who have opted to go for a narrow range, so the burden is on us to explain them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;889913Either way though, if you are trying to sell people on a game, I think it starts with respecting their established preferences.

Agreed. It is a concern.

The other issue with ranges is that -2 to +2 means more on 2D6 than -4 to +4 means on D20.

One of the things I like from S&W:WB is how saving throw thresholds drop 1 per level. AKA, if your save is 14+ on 1st level, it's 10+ on 4th level and that cuts down on some of the need for big bonuses whereas in D20, the TN 15 challenges at 1st level become TN 20 challenges at 5th level so you are always chasing the ever increasing TN with your ever increasing skills.

Quote from: Spinachcat;889931The other issue with ranges is that -2 to +2 means more on 2D6 than -4 to +4 means on D20.

Spinachcat raises a very valid point. It depends a lot on how the dice behave as well. In my case for example the dice curves for each skill level are around 3 points apart. So a +3 is a great bonus as it makes a character who is expert behave as master in something. Would I want more? Not really, as I'm interested in character skill being relevant as well. A character may be naturally good at something, but without preparation this is wasted vs someone with a better background in an area. More than +3 would give an undesirable bonus which would overshadow elements such as skill and equipment modifiers. The lower the skill modifier the more "modifiers" I have available to distribute around into such things as skill, equipment and magic modifiers before the die roll saturates and guarantees a success for the character,

I see character building as a kind of painting-with-numbers mini game. So I would certainly be unhappy with a game like this.

Quote from: Agkistro;889479I've got a mechanic I want to develop further, but right now it hums perfectly if I keep stat and skill ranges limited to 3-  stats range from 1-3, skills range from 1-3.

Mechanically it's great for what I'm doing, but I worry it has a bad....I dunno the term. Mechanical mouthfeel?

As a player, would you feel awkward or limited in a system in which everybody bad has a 1, everybody average has a 2, and everybody excellent has a 3 in whatever stat is being considered?

I'm keeping it small because it's a dice pool system- these numbers determine how many dice are rolled, so I don't want it too big.

The other obvious problem is advancement- it's hard to have a sense of gradual improvement when things can only be improved once (or twice at most). I think I've got that covered through the 'gear' aspect of the game, though.

You could just steal a page from the D&D playbook and have abilities and ability bonuses derived from them. The ability modifiers would cover the range you need them to cover to make sure your dice mechanics work, but the ability scores they are derived from can cover whatever range you want.
You could do something like say... have ability scores ranging from 3-9, 1-10, or 2-12, or whatever you want and your ability modifier (that you actually add to your rolls) is equal to your ability score divided by 3 or something.

Quote from: Agkistro;889479I've got a mechanic I want to develop further, but right now it hums perfectly if I keep stat and skill ranges limited to 3-  stats range from 1-3, skills range from 1-3.

Mechanically it's great for what I'm doing, but I worry it has a bad....I dunno the term. Mechanical mouthfeel?

As a player, would you feel awkward or limited in a system in which everybody bad has a 1, everybody average has a 2, and everybody excellent has a 3 in whatever stat is being considered?

I'm keeping it small because it's a dice pool system- these numbers determine how many dice are rolled, so I don't want it too big.

The other obvious problem is advancement- it's hard to have a sense of gradual improvement when things can only be improved once (or twice at most). I think I've got that covered through the 'gear' aspect of the game, though.

Well, your actual range is from 2 to 6 (stat and skill combined) - which has 5 steps in total so I wouldn't worry that it has too little advancement potential. If you allow skills to be 0 you'll get another step. It's not d% game where you can fine-tune your character up to 1% but it gives good advancement options and, combined with equipment, conditions, and maybe traits or specializations (if you have something like that) it provides plenty of room for character optimization.

I don't feel it's too limiting, and perhaps the stats could range from 0-3 as well, with 0 being a disability, 1=normal, 2=trained and 3=mastered. Also, to make progression a bit more gradual, the stats could range from 01-39, with the 'tens' going to the dice pools.

Quote from: Agkistro;889479I've got a mechanic I want to develop further, but right now it hums perfectly if I keep stat and skill ranges limited to 3-  stats range from 1-3, skills range from 1-3.

Mechanically it's great for what I'm doing, but I worry it has a bad....I dunno the term. Mechanical mouthfeel?

As a player, would you feel awkward or limited in a system in which everybody bad has a 1, everybody average has a 2, and everybody excellent has a 3 in whatever stat is being considered?

I'm keeping it small because it's a dice pool system- these numbers determine how many dice are rolled, so I don't want it too big.

The other obvious problem is advancement- it's hard to have a sense of gradual improvement when things can only be improved once (or twice at most). I think I've got that covered through the 'gear' aspect of the game, though.

I generally don't have a problem with limited character advancement games, they generally have a shorter run and become gear advancement and great deed games.   Heck Traveler was that kind of game, I can't ever remember improving a skill by more than 1 and never more than a few, and loved it.

I would say that your range is very small, maybe too much for me.  A range of 1-6 is a sweet spot I feel for many such games.  I play a dice pool game, Atomic Highway, it uses state ranges of 1-6 and skill ranges 1-6.  1 die per stat, +1 modifier per skill level.  Up to five dice, any dice over 5 count as auto successes.  Success on 6, failure on 1.  It works like a dream.   A long way of saying that having more than 3 dice works, and I personally like a good handful of dice as a player.

I've become a convert to a dice pool approaches so would love to hear more.