Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 10:53:28 AM

Quote from: Zalman on March 30, 2022, 10:04:41 AM
I have to admit, I haven't seen the sort of roll you describe, which games use it?

WEG D6 as one example...

Is it? Is that different from the D6 description on Wikipedia?

Quote from: Wikipedia
To perform an opposed roll action, the two parties involved (usually the player and a gamemaster controlled character) both roll their appropriate skills dice, total them and any modifiers and compare the results. If the first party's roll is higher than that of the second, he wins the contest and the rest of the result is resolved. If the second party equals or exceeds his opponent's roll, then the second party wins the contest.

The above description looks like a "normal" opposed roll to me.

Quote from: Zalman on March 30, 2022, 11:23:25 AM
Yes indeed, so long as a target number is involved each roll has its own outcome and the number of final result states will be the number of possible outcome combinations.

To be clear, what I think of as "opposed rolls" have no target number. The dice results are compared only to each other. Roll over or under makes no difference either way -- it could be highest roll wins, or lowest roll wins.

Is that just framing, though?  Does "person rolling first sets the TN" materially change it?

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 11:47:29 AM

Quote from: Zalman on March 30, 2022, 11:23:25 AM
Yes indeed, so long as a target number is involved each roll has its own outcome and the number of final result states will be the number of possible outcome combinations.

To be clear, what I think of as "opposed rolls" have no target number. The dice results are compared only to each other. Roll over or under makes no difference either way -- it could be highest roll wins, or lowest roll wins.

Is that just framing, though?  Does "person rolling first sets the TN" materially change it?

The difference between what migo and I are calling "opposed rolls" is the number of possible result states. If you use the first roll as a target number for the second, that is my version of an opposed roll because it only offers two result states: Side A wins, or Side B wins.

When each side rolls against its own target number, then each side either "succeeds" or "fails", with possible result states of "both sides succeed,", "both sides fail", "Side A succeeds, Side B fails," and "Side A fails, Side B succeeds." If I understand correctly, that's the sort of system migo is describing, noting that 4 states are more descriptive than 2.

If those 4 result states are reduced to two outcomes, then yes, it's just framing. If you're actually using 4 states, then it's quite different.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 08:14:32 AMYou're absolutely right, and roll-under would be better suited, as it would lead to fewer dice.

Except then each dice you add makes your chances worse.  It could be done that way, but it's more adversarial than what I have in mind.

I was thinking about the odds of 20d6 beating 50, as an example of a pool with enough dice to generate numbers in the target zone you were looking for, and then had another thought: What about introducing multipliers as an element?  As an example, 2d6 x 5 generates roughly the same range of numbers as 10d6, but has a much more spread out bell curve, and makes extreme results (10 or 60) common enough to be interesting.

You could then have every contributing element which increases the potential effect of a roll (player stat, tool quality, external boosts like blessings) ranked from a d4 to a d20, and player skill (which one would assume to be the basic constant) a flat number from 1 to 10 that multiplies the effect.  Thus, from your original example, you could have Dexterity (d10), Sword (d6) and Blessing (d4), which are all rolled together; in the hands of a rank amateur (Skill 1) this generates a total outcome range of 3-20 with an average of 11-12, but in the hands of a competent professional (Skill 4) your outcome range is 12-80 (average 44-48), and in the hands of a master (Skill 9), the outcome range is 27-180 (average 99-108).  This also has the advantage that even a -1 to effective Skill makes a significant difference to your outcome ranges, so players could not treat any penalty as irrelevant, and keeps the physical size of the die pools down, so players aren't taking forever to add up eight or more dice of different sizes.

The one thing this would probably require is the ability to do double-digit multiplication quickly, but that doesn't sound like it would be an obstacle for the types of gamers this game seems to be targeted towards attracting.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 30, 2022, 12:18:14 PMThis also has the advantage that even a -1 to effective Skill makes a significant difference to your outcome ranges, so players could not treat any penalty as irrelevant, and keeps the physical size of the die pools down, so players aren't taking forever to add up eight or more dice of different sizes.

The one thing this would probably require is the ability to do double-digit multiplication quickly, but that doesn't sound like it would be an obstacle for the types of gamers this game seems to be targeted towards attracting.

I had that thought about multiplication, too, but I like this idea.  Need to absorb it and play around with the dice awhile.

It makes skills primary, which isn't really a bad thing in RPGs.  Similar to proficiencies, it would create a barrier preventing amateurs from amazing outcomes (without some kind of outside influence).  Can't pick up a butter knife and do heart surgery.  And it happens naturally through the die resolution.

I really like that.

Quote from: Zalman on March 30, 2022, 11:59:12 AMIf you use the first roll as a target number for the second, that is my version of an opposed roll because it only offers two result states: Side A wins, or Side B wins.

When each side rolls against its own target number, then each side either "succeeds" or "fails", with possible result states of "both sides succeed,", "both sides fail", "Side A succeeds, Side B fails," and "Side A fails, Side B succeeds." If I understand correctly, that's the sort of system migo is describing, noting that 4 states are more descriptive than 2.

It is also possible to do this with a straight roll-over opposed roll if each side also has to face a static difficulty.  An opposed d20 roll representing separate students writing an exam, for example, could have d20 + skill vs. DC 15, where both students have to beat DC 15 to pass their exam at all but must beat the other student's roll to win their mutual competition.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 12:27:40 PMIt makes skills primary, which isn't really a bad thing in RPGs.  Similar to proficiencies, it would create a barrier preventing amateurs from amazing outcomes (without some kind of outside influence).  Can't pick up a butter knife and do heart surgery.  And it happens naturally through the die resolution.

I really like that.

Much obliged.  It occurred to me, as well, that for combat players might like to be able to allocate their skill levels between attack and defense on a round-by-round basis -- e.g. with Skill 5, you could play Attack 2, Defense 3, then next round Attack 4, Defense 1, etc. -- so as to compensate for differences in raw potential.  (One of the things I demand of any RPG these days is that it has to make it possible for combatants with higher skill, if played smartly, to match or defeat characters with better attributes, reserves or gear. The Riddle of Steel has spoiled me for most other combat systems this way.)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 30, 2022, 12:37:51 PM
Much obliged.  It occurred to me, as well, that for combat players might like to be able to allocate their skill levels between attack and defense on a round-by-round basis -- e.g. with Skill 5, you could play Attack 2, Defense 3, then next round Attack 4, Defense 1, etc. -- so as to compensate for differences in raw potential.  (One of the things I demand of any RPG these days is that it has to make it possible for combatants with higher skill, if played smartly, to match or defeat characters with better attributes, reserves or gear. The Riddle of Steel has spoiled me for most other combat systems this way.)

It reminds me of the old column-shift days, and I like that, too.

Coming into this late, but it seems like no one has mentioned Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, which came out in 2012. I tried it for a few one-shots, and gave it up as too fiddly - but there were some interesting points to its dice system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Heroic_Roleplaying

That system uses multiple dice of different sizes, pulled in from different qualities. The total is the highest two dice from the pool. This reduces the math, and reduces the effect of low-size dice, but low size dice are still helpful. Here's an example:

QuoteMy opening move as Cyclops is to blast at one of the Sentinels with a touch of my ruby-quartz visor. Now I need to gather my dice pool. I'm with Emma, so I pick up my d8 Buddy die. I've got the Tactical Genius Distinction, which is a d8, and Combat Expert, which I'm using as 2d6. Finally, I have my Force Blast d10. So my dice pool is:

d10 d8 d8 d6 d6

I roll the dice and get:

2 8 4 2 1

Taking two dice and adding them together, my total is 12.

You also need to leave out one die (after rolling) as the "Effect Die" - where it's only the size of the die that counts. So here the Effect Die is d10 (which rolled a 2, but that doesn't matter).

Quote from: jhkim on March 30, 2022, 01:28:58 PM
Coming into this late, but it seems like no one has mentioned Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, which came out in 2012. I tried it for a few one-shots, and gave it up as too fiddly - but there were some interesting points to its dice system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Heroic_Roleplaying

Yeah, Cortex is pretty neat, but I found it the same way.  Especially when trying to piece together the toolkit.  I have Tales of Xadia on the way, but doubt I'll play it.  (I was gearing up for MotU, but Kevin Smith's Netflix debacle gave me significant heartburn...)

The Opposition Roll mechanic in Cortex in it is pretty much exactly what the other guys in the thread were discussing.

Long time, no see, by the way.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 10:52:38 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2022, 10:03:00 AM
And extra complexity is the main killer I've found for getting people to actually try and stick with systems. dX+Y vs. target number Z and count successes dice pools didn't become the most popular methods at random. They're just both really simple systems (the first is basic addition then compare, the second is count dice that have a result of X or higher).

They also rely on the deception that more dice increases occurrence of success.  Most people can't see it this way because their belief system won't let them, but it's at least true in the cynical sense.  I really, really hate that lie we tell our players, and hate it the most when I'm the one rolling a failure on something that probably should have auto-succeeded.  (Don't call for the roll, blah, blah, yeah - I'm talking about the system itself here.)

Uhhh... that is actually exactly how rolling more dice works in those systems. So we are either using different definitions here or the laws of probability work differently in your neck of the woods.

dX+Y vs. a target number doesn't do any sort of dice adds so there's nothing there to even lie about. Unless you're counting something like damage rolls, where extra damage dice definitely add to the result or 5e's Advantage mechanic (roll two, take best) which does indeed actually increase the occurrence of a success happening.

With counting successes more dice literally increases the number of successes you can achieve and, unless the TN for a success is lower than the odds of a fumble (ex. -1 success when you roll a 1 in oWoD). Barring some edge case like a Diff 10+ check in oWoD, there is literally no way that adding dice in a counting successes system doesn't increase your occurrence of success.

Some clarification of what you mean by adding dice doesn't improve your odds in the two mechanics I mentioned would be helpful, because what you seem to be saying runs absolutely counter to probability as I understand it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2022, 02:06:41 PMSome clarification of what you mean by adding dice doesn't improve your odds in the two mechanics I mentioned would be helpful, because what you seem to be saying runs absolutely counter to probability as I understand it.

I get that, and that's what I mean when I express a desire to not engage (again) with yet another person on the internet who isn't receiving what I'm sending.  It isn't that I don't want to communicate it to you, it's that you probably aren't in a mental framing to receive it.  You have faith in probability, and no true concept of infinity.  But the sample of results we care about (the ones used in the game) will only truly align to probability over infinity.  In a small enough sample it's possible to find results that are nowhere near the bell curve.  I can't make people understand why I care about this.  Believe me, I've tried.

To sum up, I didn't (mean to) mention "odds" by design.  Because that's just a synonym for probability.  I don't care about probability.  I care about the actual measured occurrence.  Outside of an infinite sample set, these may or may not match.

Hope it helps, but if it doesn't I apologize.  I'm too weary of engaging in it any further.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 30, 2022, 12:18:14 PM
I was thinking about the odds of 20d6 beating 50, as an example of a pool with enough dice to generate numbers in the target zone you were looking for, and then had another thought: What about introducing multipliers as an element?  As an example, 2d6 x 5 generates roughly the same range of numbers as 10d6, but has a much more spread out bell curve, and makes extreme results (10 or 60) common enough to be interesting...

This is basically the way that Dragon Quest and James Bond (and Classified clone) work for various checks not already covered by skills, except with percentile roll under.  The "difficulty" modifier is something like .5 to 1, 2, all the way up to 5.  (There are variants on the multiples across those systems).   It helps that typical attributes range from 5 to 25, with most in the 10 to 20 range.  Try something Dex related that's really hard, the difficulty is .5, which means you need to roll under half your Dex to succeed on d%.  Whereas really easy is Dex x 5, same roll. 

That's not the core mechanic in those systems, but the regular skills that are the core mechanic are scaled around the same idea on d%, making it somewhat easy to switch back and forth. 

QuoteHow lucky are we that you can walk and chew gum at the same time, then?

I'd be interested to hear the counterpoint, if there's anything deeper here.  Is it that you feel knowing the odds of a roll increases the fun for most players?

I rather think the opposite, and having been to a casino within the month, feel like there's some evidence backing me up.

I think it's not about knowing odds or not knowing that influence the fun, though generally some knowledge is better than rolling in darkness. But does not need to be precise.
It's different problem altogether. Generally people play RPG so fictional shit can happen in fictional worlds. That's main reason. Otherwise they would play chess. Or some algebra games fro Math PhDs. Having mathematically complex rolls just for sake it - it's imho against this spirit.

And look when I meddle with mechanics they are usually often bit too complex, I can get it generally. But you said

"And certainly a simple d% is easier, but there's no mystery to it, and I find it kind of boring.

Looking to spice things up by obfuscating from the brain what the dice might do."

Which means rather than place mystery where's it's place - IN FICTION you rather make some dice jenga tower so people won't know what they roll means. Because if they knew it's boring and without mystery. Well I call bullshit. If there's numeric value on characters sheet it's competence of it's character and both player and character knows those competences.
Solution you seek is simply well wide array of difficulty level.

If you roll d100 but Test Difficulty may be anything from -40% to +40% then until you try... well you don't know how hard it is. Simple solution to mystery - GM keeping setting/NPC/challenges level in his sleeve before he gonna use it. System itself should be designed to work for specific setting/genre/gameplay... not as puzzle.

QuoteI get that, and that's what I mean when I express a desire to not engage (again) with yet another person on the internet who isn't receiving what I'm sending.  It isn't that I don't want to communicate it to you, it's that you probably aren't in a mental framing to receive it.  You have faith in probability, and no true concept of infinity.  But the sample of results we care about (the ones used in the game) will only truly align to probability over infinity.  In a small enough sample it's possible to find results that are nowhere near the bell curve.  I can't make people understand why I care about this.  Believe me, I've tried.

Yes, technically you are right that singular dice roll won't align with probability. But nevertheless - probabilities, odds are generally only viable if we wanna to stay with dice RPGs way to define competence of characters. Can specific singular occurences crush those competence in practice... sure. Why not. But we have mechanics of character competence = we have odds, unless we talk about some indie storygamey-RPGs.

And whatever mathematical system of complexities you gonna create, it still gonna be translatable to %. Just like d100.
And single d100 roll is also not aligned with probability (despite d100 being probably simplest counter of it.) so then where's your problem really.

Any maths gonna boil down to the same thing here. So only reason I see - is that you are trying to confuse your players. And that is just... badwrongfun and cannot be condoned sorry.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 05:23:35 PMWell I call bullshit.

On my opinion?  I mean, cool, but I get to decide how much weight that carries, yeah?

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 05:23:35 PM
Yes, technically you are right that singular dice roll won't align with probability.

Is that what you inferred I meant by 'sample size'?  Only one roll?  Care to explain how you drew that conclusion?

Or don't.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 05:23:35 PMAny maths gonna boil down to the same thing here. So only reason I see - is that you are trying to confuse your players. And that is just... badwrongfun and cannot be condoned sorry.

For a second there somebody thought I was seeking your approval.  To quote the Dude, "That's just like, your opinion, man."

If you don't like the topic, please feel free to disengage.