Quote from: DuchboyAs far as an elegant single die resolution system, for combat at least. Each weapon could have a chart like so:

Die Roll: 01/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/09/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20
Long Sword: 00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/02/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/10/12/14/16
Battleaxe: 00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/02/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/16/24
Pick Heavy: 00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/01/02/02/03/03/04/05/06/12/24

Of course you'd add the typical bonuses and subtract the target's AC and so on, but anything above a 20 is treated as a 20, anything below a 1 is treated as a 1.

I take it those are damage results?  It's certainly an interesting first draft of a concept.

I'm thinking of something kind of similar, actually.  A melee attack would be like a duel.  The attacking character rolls to hit; the defender rolls a defense (parry or dodge; experienced characters could get feats allowing them to counterattack on a successful defense).

Nothing original so far.  However, I'd add in a passive defense.  You'd have to roll at least a modified 10 to hit anything, and things like armour and shields when increase the passive defense.  If you don't exceed the passive defense, it doesn't matter how bad the defender rolled -- you miss.

If you bypass both the defender's passive and active defenses, you hit.  Your weapon does a minimum amount of damage (based on it, your strength, magic, feats, etc.) +1 hp per point you beat your opponent by.

My idea is also in the very rough draft stage -- casual examination will show all sorts of ways that would go wrong with the rest of the D&D rules -- but that's where my ideas are headed.

Dice mechanics
I like 2d10 over 1d20 because you get more average rolls.
I do not like d20's extraordinary events 10% of the time.  (On a 20 and on a 1 as well something unusual happens.)

I like a system with impossibility built into it.  I prefer a critical success such, as a rolling a 20 to add a significant bonus (+5 or +10)  to success instead of being considered automatic.  If your fighting someone with an AC of 43 and you only have a +9 to hit before the dice, you should be screwed, not have a 5% chance every swing of clobbering them anyway.  I want the same to apply to rolling a 1.  

As the GM, if your fighting someone with a AC of 43 and you only have +9, you have screwed up in an epic way and its time to pay the piper.  I don't want to have to worry about fabulous luck or cheating a dice making a difference.  If you have the AC of 43 and your opponent only has a +9 I will have him react appropriately such as run screaming, surrender, jump off a cliff because the odds of survival are better, etc...

If you have a number on a scale, have it have meaning individually, not just as a group.  Don't roll a 1d10 + skill + attribute and then have 11-12 the same and 13-14 the same, etc...  This is one of the things I don't like about Unisystem.  I don't want a 14 to be the same as a 13.  Change the range of your skills and attributes, or what an individual point of success means and balance it.

Quote from: Xavier LangDice mechanics
I like 2d10 over 1d20 because you get more average rolls.
I do not like d20's extraordinary events 10% of the time.  (On a 20 and on a 1 as well something unusual happens.)

I have been thinking about this ever since Azlan talked about it on the old board.  I've tinkered with it and I'm not really sure whether I like 2d10 or not.  It definitely makes the bonuses more important than the die roll and I'm just not sure how that would work out in play.  I guess I'm just too used to d20 rolls; I'm not sure what to make of 2d10.

Currently, a character with a +10 has an edge over someone with a +5, but that edge would be much stronger if you're rolling 2d10.  (I don't have my notes with me so I'm not sure how much stronger offhand.)  I'm not sure how much that would impact game play, really.

I have very few opinions on dice.

I hate dice pools or anything else that makes determining the odds of success difficult.

My fantasy game runs with d100 for skills, 2d6 for saving throws, and the D&D like range of dice for damage.

HERO uses 3d6 for skills and characteristic checks. And additive D6s for 'damage'. I'm happy with this except when running fantasy.

I want something simple. Few dice. Easy resolution. Quick combat. I hate spending hours on a 30-second combat. That's unnecessary. 5 minutes tops.

If realism is sacrificed, so be it.

Quote from: Name LipsI want something simple. Few dice. Easy resolution. Quick combat. I hate spending hours on a 30-second combat. That's unnecessary. 5 minutes tops.

I love long combats.

Here are a few general thoughts:

I hate it when it varies on what dice are used for the same situation.   It just gets tedious to remember.  That's the main thing that made Alternaty not worth it to me.  I had the same problem with the stunt dice in Dragon Fist - you rolled a D20, then rolled another die whose size depended on your stats.  I'm sure that it would become easier over time but why make a game harder to learn if there's not much payoff?

Large numbers of dice are a pain.  I'm capable of rolling and adding huge numbers of dice, but it takes a few extra moments every time. For me there's rarely a good reason to roll more than 3 dice.

Whenever you're rolling lots of dice, there is a fairly strong central tendency - even if not all of the dice are rolled at the same time.  For example, the variability of single die opposed rolls is the same as rolling two dice to resolve something (assuming same type of dice in both cases).  The math is the same but the feel to the players is quite different.  Along the same lines, you don't have to worry about the flat density function of a single die if something takes several rounds to play out.  

The times where you have to look closely as using one die are when that one roll has a big effect.  For example, poison in AD&D was annoying because you lived or died on a single roll.  Single rolls are not necessarily bad but you need to think about if they're doing what you want.  

You need to look at the granularity of the event possibilities.  For example, with one die, the lowest frequency of an event is 1/die size.  Victory Games put out several operational level games where an entire battle was decided by 1d10 - a battle outcome was either 10% likely of occuring or impossible.

Here's what I want out of a dice mechanic - simple, intuitive, transparent, and granular.  Specifically here's what my magic dream system would do.

- Roll over.  I don't like roll under, I like it when big numbers mean you did better.
- Success levels.  Something more than pass/fail, I want to know how well you passed or failed, as well as allowing rolls over time and so on.
- Single die.  Dice pools obfuscate the odds of success, and are a pain to deal with in game.
- Simple.  Both the success and number of levels are readily apparent with no need for lookups or such.

That's why I'm such a unisystem whore, it gets three out of the four.  If I could figure out a way to get rid of the chart and have success levels be obvious from the die roll I'd be in gaming heaven.

Quote from: Maddman... I'd be in gaming heaven.

Don't you mean hog heaven?

Quote from: gleichmanDon't you mean hog heaven?

Oink Oink.  

Quote from: MaddmanHere's what I want out of a dice mechanic - simple, intuitive, transparent, and granular.  Specifically here's what my magic dream system would do.

- Roll over.  I don't like roll under, I like it when big numbers mean you did better.
- Success levels.  Something more than pass/fail, I want to know how well you passed or failed, as well as allowing rolls over time and so on.
- Single die.  Dice pools obfuscate the odds of success, and are a pain to deal with in game.
- Simple.  Both the success and number of levels are readily apparent with no need for lookups or such.

That's why I'm such a unisystem whore, it gets three out of the four.  If I could figure out a way to get rid of the chart and have success levels be obvious from the die roll I'd be in gaming heaven.

Isn't unisystem (1d10 + skill + attribute -8)/2 = successes?

1d10 = 7
skill = 4
attribute = 3
14-8 = 6
6/2 = 3
successes = 3  
13 or 14 = 3 successes?

Quote from: Xavier LangIsn't unisystem (1d10 + skill + attribute -8)/2 = successes?

1d10 = 7
skill = 4
attribute = 3
14-8 = 6
6/2 = 3
successes = 3  
13 or 14 = 3 successes?

No.  The chart isn't linear, it goes from every two to every three.  The success chart is

 9-10 1
11-12 2
13-14 3
15-16 4
17-20 5
21-23 6

With an extra success for every three.  Even if you changed it to simply be every other is a success level, then that formula is still too complex to work out in game.  I'm not sure how my dream system would work, but it would be very clever .

The chart above is to determine damage.  It should probably be changed to 2d10; it seems a bit too deadly as a d20.  I did read through an old Rolemaser book once, and I've downloaded the free HARP rules. But the actual inspiration came from a $5 strategy game I got from RPG shop (which doesn't seem to sell strategy games any more).  The game had paper "miniatures" with 3 row 1d10 charts at the bottom, one row for recruit, regular, and elite respectively.

Cyberzombie, so you are contemplating a two step process: first see if you hit, then if you did determine damage, but use the same die result for both steps.  It seems like you could streamline the process by nixing the 10 pt bonus to passive defense, then accomplishing everything in one step.  Like so: Assuming a Lvl 1 ftr with a long sword and shield in chain mail attacking another similar ftr.
..................Attacker..Defender
Ability Mod............4...........0
Equip Mod............5..........5+1
Base Atk+wpn foc...2...........0
Die Roll................10..........10
Total....................21.........16
So in this case the Attacker would do 5+(whatever your damage bonus is for a long sword).

On the other hand if you keep the two steps you could do some interesting things, like split the mods for weapons.  So a short staff could be easy to hit with but do less damage, while a warhammer would be the other way around.  You could do the same for armor.

Quote from: DuchboyCyberzombie, so you are contemplating a two step process: first see if you hit, then if you did determine damage, but use the same die result for both steps.  It seems like you could streamline the process by nixing the 10 pt bonus to passive defense, then accomplishing everything in one step.

I could, but I don't want to.  

Here's my reasoning: I have played the various Palladium games.  There's a small chance of missing (if you roll a 1-4 on the d20) but, in general, it's a straight, active contest between the attacker and the defender.  Either the attacker or the defender is going to win.  And if the defender doesn't have an active defense, the attacker is going to hit 80% of the time.

I'm not after truly realistic combat, but that's not realistic *enough* for me to suspend disbelief.  There is always a chance of just flat missing, no matter what your target does.  For my rough draft, I'm using the D&D system, where an untrained combatant has a 50% chance of missing -- the +10 bonus.  When I spend more time on it, that may well change.

I really like the idea of both passive and active defenses, but I've never been able to work up something practical for the gaming table before.  This may or may not be it.  

Quote from: CyberzombieI really like the idea of both passive and active defenses, but I've never been able to work up something practical for the gaming table before.  This may or may not be it.  

I worked something up for my fantasy game.

Wouldn't call it practical however. How does double digit addition/subtraction and division sound to you?