TheRPGSite

I can't stop thinking about different dice resolution systems.  I feel like the "best one" is out there somewhere, and feel frustrated that I don't know what it is.  For example, I prefer target number systems with cumulative dice.  But I also prefer easy-to-follow target numbers, like percentages.  I think in percentages already anyway, so that's very natural to me.  And as a GM, it'd be easy to say guess a percentage of likelihood: "What are the chances you would fail to climb that wall?  Oh... 30% sounds good."  So today I'm noodling how to use cumulative dice to climb towards a percentage number.

I'm thinking factors.  Each one gives you (some) dice.  I'm also wondering if it would be cool or annoying to use differently shaped dice, so maybe:

Skill of 5d10, weapon quality 2d6, blessing 1d4 aiming for a Target Number of 60.

It's just a rough example.  Have you seen this before?  Am I remembering it from somewhere?

What do you think of it as a general idea?

What are you doing in your example? Adding the dice all together? That's a lot of things to add, and not terribly intuitive for me.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 29, 2022, 03:51:30 PM
I can't stop thinking about different dice resolution systems.  I feel like the "best one" is out there somewhere, and feel frustrated that I don't know what it is.  For example, I prefer target number systems with cumulative dice.  But I also prefer easy-to-follow target numbers, like percentages.  I think in percentages already anyway, so that's very natural to me.  And as a GM, it'd be easy to say guess a percentage of likelihood: "What are the chances you would fail to climb that wall?  Oh... 30% sounds good."  So today I'm noodling how to use cumulative dice to climb towards a percentage number.

I'm thinking factors.  Each one gives you (some) dice.  I'm also wondering if it would be cool or annoying to use differently shaped dice, so maybe:

Skill of 5d10, weapon quality 2d6, blessing 1d4 aiming for a Target Number of 60.

It's just a rough example.  Have you seen this before?  Am I remembering it from somewhere?

What do you think of it as a general idea?

Roll over or roll under? Because with the dice you picked and the target number, that's either nigh impossible to succeed or nigh impossible to fail.

Way too many dice to add up in that example for things to resolve quickly unless you're already really good at that type of addition.

A related factor is that because you're using multiple dice its NOT a straight percentage chance you're rolling for in your example. The average on 5d10+2d6+1d4 is just 37 and the odds of achieving a 60 or better result are virtually nonexistent.

The big things to consider are...

A) do you want margins of success or not? If yes, then you'll want multiple dice to get a bell curve distribution of results, but once you're at 3 total dice the degree of closeness to a bell curve is generally not worth the extra counting time. If not, keep it simple with one die (or percentage dice) + modifiers.

Also worth noting is that any task which requires multiple action rolls to succeed is automatically a bell curve of sorts.

B) How often are people rolling? Percentiles are great if you have lots of rolls because there will be enough rolls for 1-2% to matter. But if players are only making a dozen rolls per session, that degree of precision may not actually come up enough to really matter and you're better off using smaller numbers (d20 being used so much isn't exactly an accident... it's basically 5% increments of probability which is at the upper limit of what most people can estimate (leaving aside the Dunning-Kruger effect).

Honestly, a simple percentile roll under skill level system with bonuses and penalties is probably what you'd actually want to look at if you really want a percentile based system.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 29, 2022, 03:51:30 PM
I can't stop thinking about different dice resolution systems.  I feel like the "best one" is out there somewhere, and feel frustrated that I don't know what it is...

Resolution mechanics don't exist in a vacuum.  They are part of the system.  A good resolution mechanic is in part one that fits the overall system well.  So by definition, there can't be a "best one" out there. 

Now, narrow done what are the goals, restrictions, etc. of the overall system first.  Then the list of resolution mechanics that will be a better fit will get short in a hurry.  If you go the other way, and start with a mechanic you really like, then that necessarily constrains the list of system aspects that will fit well around it.

I vaguely think the idea of adding up the total of a pool of different types of dice may have been done in Earthdawn, and I know there have been systems which used a Stat die plus a Skill die with each larger grade of die representing a step in ability. I don't think I've ever seen a pool with as many dice as you propose, though.

Some points I would note are:

- Once you get past three or four dice on a regular basis, counting successes is going to be measurably quicker than adding all the dice up for a total. Even with counting successes, keeping the physical number of dice rolled at a time to 10 or fewer is probably a good idea.

- If you want to use different types of die in the same pool, I'd suggest using a set target number of 4, as this is the only way a pool component measured in D4s can contribute.  Success is then measured in the number of "hits" (4 or over) the dice produce.

- You are unlikely to be able to get an immediate, workably accurate estimate of a simple percentage chance this way, as the cumulative probabilities for dice of different types rolled together is tricky for most people to calculate on the fly.  You may want to figure in advance some "benchmarks" and let players wing from there based on intuition -- for example, with a set TN 4, a pool of 5d6 requiring 3 hits is exactly 50-50% succeed or fail odds.

(I personally like dice pool systems precisely because they make final numerical probability opaque in this way -- to me, thinking in terms of "a 73% chance of success" is immersion-breaking -- but it sounds like you prefer systems where knowing your final chance is a little easier.)

Quote from: Thondor on March 29, 2022, 04:07:42 PM
What are you doing in your example? Adding the dice all together? That's a lot of things to add, and not terribly intuitive for me.

That's the thought, yes.  I usually use a computer to play, but I did see that possible problem.

OTOH, it could possibly make the dice goblins happy to roll so many.

Quote from: migo on March 29, 2022, 04:09:51 PM
Roll over or roll under? Because with the dice you picked and the target number, that's either nigh impossible to succeed or nigh impossible to fail.

Ignore the example's TN, sorry.

Roll over.  Cumulative towards a target, so more dice is always better, if only by +1.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 29, 2022, 04:20:48 PM
The big things to consider are...

A) do you want margins of success or not? If yes, then you'll want multiple dice to get a bell curve distribution of results, but once you're at 3 total dice the degree of closeness to a bell curve is generally not worth the extra counting time. If not, keep it simple with one die (or percentage dice) + modifiers.

Also worth noting is that any task which requires multiple action rolls to succeed is automatically a bell curve of sorts.

B) How often are people rolling? Percentiles are great if you have lots of rolls because there will be enough rolls for 1-2% to matter. But if players are only making a dozen rolls per session, that degree of precision may not actually come up enough to really matter and you're better off using smaller numbers (d20 being used so much isn't exactly an accident... it's basically 5% increments of probability which is at the upper limit of what most people can estimate (leaving aside the Dunning-Kruger effect).

Honestly, a simple percentile roll under skill level system with bonuses and penalties is probably what you'd actually want to look at if you really want a percentile based system.

A:  Not.  I don't like 'number of success' systems, just in general.  Straight pass or fail for the core mechanic would be my preference.

B:  Assume reasonably often.  Not necessarily a pure OSR approach, but neither a completely gamist one.  Somewhere in the middle.

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.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 29, 2022, 04:50:54 PM
Resolution mechanics don't exist in a vacuum.  They are part of the system.  A good resolution mechanic is in part one that fits the overall system well.  So by definition, there can't be a "best one" out there. 

Now, narrow done what are the goals, restrictions, etc. of the overall system first.  Then the list of resolution mechanics that will be a better fit will get short in a hurry.  If you go the other way, and start with a mechanic you really like, then that necessarily constrains the list of system aspects that will fit well around it.

I want a dice mechanism that determines success or failure of an attempted task.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 29, 2022, 05:19:13 PM
Looking to spice things up by obfuscating from the brain what the dice might do.

Apologies for misreading your original post; I had thought you were interested in systems that made the final chances obvious the way basic roll-under-% systems do.  My bad for not paying closer attention.

It also occurs to me that this thread might belong more in the "Design, Development and Gameplay" forum.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2022, 05:12:53 PM
I vaguely think the idea of adding up the total of a pool of different types of dice may have been done in Earthdawn, and I know there have been systems which used a Stat die plus a Skill die with each larger grade of die representing a step in ability. I don't think I've ever seen a pool with as many dice as you propose, though.

Some points I would note are:

- Once you get past three or four dice on a regular basis, counting successes is going to be measurably quicker than adding all the dice up for a total. Even with counting successes, keeping the physical number of dice rolled at a time to 10 or fewer is probably a good idea.

- If you want to use different types of die in the same pool, I'd suggest using a set target number of 4, as this is the only way a pool component measured in D4s can contribute.  Success is then measured in the number of "hits" (4 or over) the dice produce.

- You are unlikely to be able to get an immediate, workably accurate estimate of a simple percentage chance this way, as the cumulative probabilities for dice of different types rolled together is tricky for most people to calculate on the fly.  You may want to figure in advance some "benchmarks" and let players wing from there based on intuition -- for example, with a set TN 4, a pool of 5d6 requiring 3 hits is exactly 50-50% succeed or fail odds.

(I personally like dice pool systems precisely because they make final numerical probability opaque in this way -- to me, thinking in terms of "a 73% chance of success" is immersion-breaking -- but it sounds like you prefer systems where knowing your final chance is a little easier.)

Yes, could be Earthdawn.  It's definitely been a minute since I ran that one...

Counting successes is anathema to me, because dice don't care about probability curves.  Not going to rehash that argument, so feel free to disagree, but adding dice to a number of success should not be assumed to increase the occurrence of a success.  The pretty curves will imply that you'll HAVE to roll a success from a certain number of tries, but ultimately it's not true.  Plus, and this is just my experience of course, failures tend to happen at the worst possible times under these systems.  "Easy" rolls do not exist when zero successes is a potential result.

Not trying to cut off what may be an interesting discussion, but that's really all I'm going to say about it here.

Sum up to say, I prefer cumulative systems where you're adding the dice towards a result because more dice is always better.

Non-100-based TNs are doable, but not as easy to estimate.  A d20 is after all relatable to 100 by 5, but few people look at it that way.  People equate 5e's advantage to +5, not +25%, for example.

Estimating the likelihood of success of the roll is not a goal I have in mind.  The opposite, actually - I want it to feel like a risk, even when a lot of dice are involved.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2022, 05:27:13 PM
Apologies for misreading your original post; I had thought you were interested in systems that made the final chances obvious the way basic roll-under-% systems do.  My bad for not paying closer attention.

It also occurs to me that this thread might belong more in the "Design, Development and Gameplay" forum.

No worries at all.  It's been a minute since I've posted here.  If moving is a thing that can be done, I'm of course open to that happening.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 29, 2022, 05:27:59 PMEstimating the likelihood of success of the roll is not a goal I have in mind.  The opposite, actually - I want it to feel like a risk, even when a lot of dice are involved.

That makes sense. Okay, assuming the goal is for the dice to total over a number between 1 and 100, I then have some further thoughts:

- Every die will add half its maximum value (+0.5) to the average outcome of any pool it's part of.  You can therefore think of every d4 as being "worth" 2.5, every d6 as being "worth" 3.5, etc.  To get a feel for the Difficulty TN of various tasks, put together the typical die pool of an "average" person, figure out its average outcome (e.g. 3d6 + 2d4 = 10.5 + 5 = c. 15-16).

- Then decide whether the TN of an "average" difficulty task should be at the point where it's always a 50-50 risk or lower (i.e. anything you actually roll for is by definition difficult and risky), or whether it's at the point where you're more likely to succeed than fail (i.e. in real life most of us succeed at the vast majority of our professional uses of our skills, or we wouldn't still have jobs). Place it as appropriate compared to that baseline average outcome, over or under.

- Use that "midpoint" difficulty as how to assess difficulties going above that.

One thing as noted above is that going by this analysis, getting totals as high even as 20 on a reliable (i.e. more than half the time) basis will require pools of 4d10 or more, or the equivalent. Getting any total of 50 or higher half the time or more requires 10d10 or 5d20. You may have to assess how much character development is required to reach that point.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 29, 2022, 03:51:30 PM
I can't stop thinking about different dice resolution systems.  I feel like the "best one" is out there somewhere, and feel frustrated that I don't know what it is.  For example, I prefer target number systems with cumulative dice.  But I also prefer easy-to-follow target numbers, like percentages.  I think in percentages already anyway, so that's very natural to me.  And as a GM, it'd be easy to say guess a percentage of likelihood: "What are the chances you would fail to climb that wall?  Oh... 30% sounds good."  So today I'm noodling how to use cumulative dice to climb towards a percentage number.

I'm thinking factors.  Each one gives you (some) dice.  I'm also wondering if it would be cool or annoying to use differently shaped dice, so maybe:

Skill of 5d10, weapon quality 2d6, blessing 1d4 aiming for a Target Number of 60.

It's just a rough example.  Have you seen this before?  Am I remembering it from somewhere?

What do you think of it as a general idea?

I'm not a fan at all of percentage rolls. But if I were, then how would you handle degrees of failure/success? Or would it just be pass/fail?

QuoteAnd 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.

I must admit - unless you use funky narrative dice, I'm not sure if turning dice mechanics into some mysterious puzzle is proper place to put mystery in RPG.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on March 29, 2022, 11:07:18 PM

I'm not a fan at all of percentage rolls. But if I were, then how would you handle degrees of failure/success? Or would it just be pass/fail?

If you have opposed rolls, you have 4 possible outcomes. Fail vs fail, pass vs fail, pass vs pass and fail vs pass.

Fail vs pass is a critical failure, pass vs fail is a critical success, fail vs fail is a simple failure, and pass vs pass is a simple success. That's if you want to have a system where there isn't much in the way of stalemates and action is encouraged.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2022, 05:48:45 PM
One thing as noted above is that going by this analysis, getting totals as high even as 20 on a reliable (i.e. more than half the time) basis will require pools of 4d10 or more, or the equivalent. Getting any total of 50 or higher half the time or more requires 10d10 or 5d20. You may have to assess how much character development is required to reach that point.

You'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.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on March 29, 2022, 11:07:18 PM
I'm not a fan at all of percentage rolls. But if I were, then how would you handle degrees of failure/success? Or would it just be pass/fail?

Pass/fail, I think.

You can vary the rate by changing the TN.  And you could have a separate roll for effect, if desired.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 05:27:08 AM
I must admit - unless you use funky narrative dice, I'm not sure if turning dice mechanics into some mysterious puzzle is proper place to put mystery in RPG.

How 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.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 05:50:59 AM
If you have opposed rolls, you have 4 possible outcomes. Fail vs fail, pass vs fail, pass vs pass and fail vs pass.

Fail vs pass is a critical failure, pass vs fail is a critical success, fail vs fail is a simple failure, and pass vs pass is a simple success. That's if you want to have a system where there isn't much in the way of stalemates and action is encouraged.

Crits and fumbles are on my radar, yes.  But I'd like to settle on a core mechanic first.

My chief concern with opposed rolls is how dynamic that can be.  Especially if you're rolling a TN between 1 and 100...

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 08:19:54 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 05:50:59 AM
If you have opposed rolls, you have 4 possible outcomes. Fail vs fail, pass vs fail, pass vs pass and fail vs pass.

Fail vs pass is a critical failure, pass vs fail is a critical success, fail vs fail is a simple failure, and pass vs pass is a simple success. That's if you want to have a system where there isn't much in the way of stalemates and action is encouraged.

Crits and fumbles are on my radar, yes.  But I'd like to settle on a core mechanic first.

My chief concern with opposed rolls is how dynamic that can be.  Especially if you're rolling a TN between 1 and 100...

The benefit of opposed rolls with four options rather than two, is the mechanics tell you something about what happened.

So you're shooting at someone, you hit and they dodge. That means it was a graze. If you hit and they don't dodge, it's a hit right in centre mass. If you miss and they don't dodge, they were standing there and you just missed. If you miss and they do dodge then they're automatically in a better position to defend against your next shot.

Depending on what the context is, you'll have different outcomes that are the logical interpretation of the results of the dice. It also immediately obfuscates the chance of success, because you only know your chance, you don't know that of your opponent. And with four possible outcomes rather than two, it's further less clear what the outcome will be.

You can do this with any system - you could do a step system, an additive pool system where you add 1-3 dice of different size, you could use 2d6, 3d6, 1d20 or 1d100 either roll-under or roll-over. With opposed rolls you just get some easy variety in outcomes that you don't have if you have a system of a simple success if you meet the target number, and a critical success if you beat it by 5 or more (or 30% or more, or whatever system you want to use).

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 08:18:22 AM

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.

Handling time is a thing, whether casual players or very experienced, invested gamers.  That's because the interest and desire to sift through the complexity is a moving target.

For example, if you have an overall system geared for relatively few rolls, and every roll carries a lot of weight (e.g. some dice pool games that deal with resolving the better part of a conflict in a single roll), then complexity is a huge boon in some ways, even with casual players.  The game part is not the roll, but all the jockeying that goes into getting another die in the pool or denying the same to the opponent.  Then at the end, you roll and find out who "won". 

Even in those systems, however, it is best to not monkey with all possible aspects, but rather have a few things fixed that the players can build around.  It's bad design in a dice pool, for example, to vary the die size and the TN for a success and the number of dice and the way that people contribute and what the dice means.  Whereas you can get away with changing any one of those, though there is some thought that varying the TN makes the handling time on counting too much for too little return.

If the system has more frequent rolls, then the handling time for complexity starts to really bite.  Where to draw the line is part of the art of the design.

Lastly, if you are looking for pass/fail outcomes, then incremental improvements are counter-productive after a certain point, and the long way around to get to pass fail starts to annoy people.  This ain't about chewing gum and walking at the same time.  It's about patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time.  Just because I can, doesn't mean that I want to, or that I want something riding on it, even if only the health of my pretend elf.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 30, 2022, 08:18:22 AM

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 05:27:08 AM
I must admit - unless you use funky narrative dice, I'm not sure if turning dice mechanics into some mysterious puzzle is proper place to put mystery in RPG.

How 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.

First rule I learned in game design when I threw my first iteration out to playtesters is "don't presume your preferences are the majority." As popular as casinos might appear the majority of the population actually doesn't gamble.

Here's some stats on that from the actual casino industry;  https://www.casino.org/features/gambling-statistics/ (https://www.casino.org/features/gambling-statistics/)

Also worth noting is that gambling isn't quite the same thing as game play. You go in knowing you'll probably lose money, but might hit it big if you're lucky, but (and this is the biggie) you are determining your level of risk when you set your budget for gambling. "I can afford to lose $20 on the slots" is a very different risk calculation than "This plane has an unknown chance of crashing." We don't hop onto planes with even a 1% chance of crashing unless the consequences of not doing so are worse.

Anyway, my general finding from testing is that people only take risks when they think they know the odds and that those odds are in their favor. Now, in practice, most people are horrible at actually judging what those odds actually mean (ex. 10% doesn't mean you'll succeed after 10 attempts) which actually works really well for simulating the Duning-Kruger effect, but not being able to at least generally size up difficulty will tend to lead to much more timid play in my experience.

The other part to consider is that, no matter how unintuitive you make the system mechanics, anyone who actually sticks with it (or is actually good at probability math... which a disproportionate number of gamers are) will figure out the odds anyway and someone or the other will actually post the odds somewhere searchable so even the match challenged can learn the odds if they want to... at which point you're back to a straight percentile system anyway, just with needless complexity caked onto it.

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).

You can also get away with adding more together if those dice are smaller. 2-3d6 is solid for precisely this reason, but adding 3d20 would be less so.

My suggestion if you're looking for more interesting resolution mechanics is to not look at dice at all, but towards playing cards as the blend of numbers, face cards and suits can determine multiple aspects of a check with a single draw and you can change up the deck by ignoring or giving emphasis to certain cards as desired.

As an example of that last bit; by default you might ignore face cards, but a special ability might give an advantage to a face card when drawn. Another ability might allow you to ignore A-3 cards, so you have a better chance at a high result. The suit might determine complications or boons on top of success or failure.

Now you could get something close by rolling multiple dice sorta like FFG Star Wars; but there's a certain elegance to being able to accomplish all that with a single card draw.

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 08:41:17 AM
The benefit of opposed rolls with four options rather than two, is the mechanics tell you something about what happened.

So you're shooting at someone, you hit and they dodge. That means it was a graze. If you hit and they don't dodge, it's a hit right in centre mass. If you miss and they don't dodge, they were standing there and you just missed. If you miss and they do dodge then they're automatically in a better position to defend against your next shot.

Depending on what the context is, you'll have different outcomes that are the logical interpretation of the results of the dice. It also immediately obfuscates the chance of success, because you only know your chance, you don't know that of your opponent. And with four possible outcomes rather than two, it's further less clear what the outcome will be.

This seems to assume that "opposed rolls" are two separate people each rolling against a target number, and comparing their success with each other. I would call that "dual rolls," not "opposed rolls" myself. In systems that I've seen using opposed roles, the results of each die are compared to each other. In that sort of "opposed" roll there are only two outcomes.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the sort of roll you describe, which games use it?

Quote from: Zalman on March 30, 2022, 10:04:41 AM

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 08:41:17 AM
The benefit of opposed rolls with four options rather than two, is the mechanics tell you something about what happened.

So you're shooting at someone, you hit and they dodge. That means it was a graze. If you hit and they don't dodge, it's a hit right in centre mass. If you miss and they don't dodge, they were standing there and you just missed. If you miss and they do dodge then they're automatically in a better position to defend against your next shot.

Depending on what the context is, you'll have different outcomes that are the logical interpretation of the results of the dice. It also immediately obfuscates the chance of success, because you only know your chance, you don't know that of your opponent. And with four possible outcomes rather than two, it's further less clear what the outcome will be.

This seems to assume that "opposed rolls" are two separate people each rolling against a target number, and comparing their success with each other. I would call that "dual rolls," not "opposed rolls" myself. In systems that I've seen using opposed roles, the results of each die are compared to each other. In that sort of "opposed" roll there are only two outcomes.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the sort of roll you describe, which games use it?

I see it in systems using roll-under percentile checks. Millenium's End off the top of my head, but it also shows up in others. It's when you're rolling against a known target number, and you succeed or fail based on that.

You're right if it's a system like d20 where the results are compared there are two outcomes, but even if it were roll-over and it were instead beating a target number, you could have that four-outcome spread.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 30, 2022, 09:24:03 AM
Even in those systems, however, it is best to not monkey with all possible aspects, but rather have a few things fixed that the players can build around.  It's bad design in a dice pool, for example, to vary the die size and the TN for a success and the number of dice and the way that people contribute and what the dice means.  Whereas you can get away with changing any one of those, though there is some thought that varying the TN makes the handling time on counting too much for too little return.

Yeah, it certainly makes sense to limit the number of variables.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2022, 10:03:00 AM
First rule I learned in game design when I threw my first iteration out to playtesters is "don't presume your preferences are the majority." As popular as casinos might appear the majority of the population actually doesn't gamble.

I can always continue to produce DMsGuild products if I want to appeal to the majority.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2022, 10:03:00 AM
The other part to consider is that, no matter how unintuitive you make the system mechanics, anyone who actually sticks with it (or is actually good at probability math... which a disproportionate number of gamers are) will figure out the odds anyway and someone or the other will actually post the odds somewhere searchable so even the match challenged can learn the odds if they want to... at which point you're back to a straight percentile system anyway, just with needless complexity caked onto it.

System mastery makes WotC a ton of money.

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.)

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2022, 10:03:00 AM
My suggestion if you're looking for more interesting resolution mechanics is to not look at dice at all, but towards playing cards as the blend of numbers, face cards and suits can determine multiple aspects of a check with a single draw and you can change up the deck by ignoring or giving emphasis to certain cards as desired.

So I did have this thought, but Gloomhaven is already in the 'cards as RPG' space, and my experience with that game is that it is not something I enjoy.  Perhaps I just like dice.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2022, 10:03:00 AM
Now you could get something close by rolling multiple dice sorta like FFG Star Wars; but there's a certain elegance to being able to accomplish all that with a single card draw.

And I'm also not necessarily trying to build a subscription service, as Fantasy Flight loves to do.  I'd prefer to use supplies commonly found in the hobby.

So a lot of this is about my personal preference, but under the 50/50 rule, and as I said above, I'm looking to make something that I am passionate about, and that starts with personally liking it.

For the masses, I can do another D&D module...

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...

Quote from: migo on March 30, 2022, 10:27:09 AM
You're right if it's a system like d20 where the results are compared there are two outcomes, but even if it were roll-over and it were instead beating a target number, you could have that four-outcome spread.

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.

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.

QuoteFor 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.

Oh, I like the topic otherwise I'd not be here :P
So please explain how your strawey occurence vs probability distinction really change on fundamental level if you pick confusing dice system over clear one.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 05:47:57 PM

QuoteFor 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.

Oh, I like the topic otherwise I'd not be here :P
So please explain how your strawey occurence vs probability distinction really change on fundamental level if you pick confusing dice system over clear one.

As mentioned above the system mastery element for the math-minded is still there, and always will be.  There is a type of player who will find the juice worth the squeeze to work out the probabilities.

For the rest of us non-Spikes, "more dice is better".

The column shift idea makes it more complicated, but not a ton.  I need to test that suggestion before I comment more on it, but it's a good compromise.

The final result of that would be rolling a smaller handful of dice and multiplying by a factor determined by skill and situation.  And hell, maybe a Fate die if you're feeling saucy, to shift it up or down.  Maybe.  Need to see it rolled out to get the feel of it before I decide.

QuoteAs mentioned above the system mastery element for the math-minded is still there, and always will be.  There is a type of player who will find the juice worth the squeeze to work out the probabilities.

Mathematicians on spectrum, if I had to make any bets :P
See generally when I think about RPGs with system mastery I think about resource management, some baroque character builds, tactical combat on map. Not about... making every single skill role a chore. As much as terrible amateur I really get enjoyement of solving math puzzles and equations of various sorts, I do. I just don't see why would... anyone wanted to mix it with test for repairing broken saddle or bluffing to tax collector about your profits.

Now some of ideas are quite cool. I on totally instinctive level see skill rank as multiplier as very good mechanics to within simple amount of numbers make big difference between amateurs and pros. Now I'm not sure if when using whole pool of different dice, but I'd certainly want to see it tested on some simpler mechanics.

Now TBH now I think about it - as non mathematician - how you imagine option when picking dice pool of possible on your card different than biggest possible dices would be more beneficial for PC (of course in dreaded probability way)... I mean maybe if you'd play it like blackjack...

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 06:15:53 PMNow some of ideas are quite cool. I on totally instinctive level see skill rank as multiplier as very good mechanics to within simple amount of numbers make big difference between amateurs and pros. Now I'm not sure if when using whole pool of different dice, but I'd certainly want to see it tested on some simpler mechanics.

Yeah, I want to test both.  A trial with only d10s and a trial with a mix.

The mixed dice have a different range of results, but higher than a d10 starts getting pretty swingy.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 06:15:53 PMI mean maybe if you'd play it like blackjack...

Earlier when the cards suggestion was made, a different idea crept into my head where each player has a deck of playing cards or similar, draws a hand, and decides which to commit to the task.  Can't draw back up until you rest.  Don't want to commit more than are needed, but failure has consequences.  All participating players can submit one card face down (they're helping), and the active player can submit as many as desired.

It becomes more of a party game than an RPG, but it'd be fun to mess with later...

I think if you're doing mixed dice, I don't think you want more than 3. So a Savage Worlds style d4 to d12, one for attribute, one for skill, and possibly one for a bonus of some sort, it'll be OK. You would have a pool ranging from 2d4 to 3d12. If you're doing roll over TN, you'd want to see where you set it. If the base TN is 8, then it's almost impossible for someone to succeed if they have the bottom rung ability. But that would have to be worked out in playtesting.

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 06:26:14 AM
I think if you're doing mixed dice, I don't think you want more than 3. So a Savage Worlds style d4 to d12, one for attribute, one for skill, and possibly one for a bonus of some sort, it'll be OK. You would have a pool ranging from 2d4 to 3d12. If you're doing roll over TN, you'd want to see where you set it. If the base TN is 8, then it's almost impossible for someone to succeed if they have the bottom rung ability. But that would have to be worked out in playtesting.

Which is why Savage Words uses a TN of 4 for a basic success and 8 for a raise and "use best of the dice you rolled" as the result. Almost no adding (+/-2 is a big modifier) involved until you get to damage dice (which is your usual roll and add it up mechanic which, given that gets compared to a toughness score before it does anything, feels a bit divorced from the rest of the mechanics).

QuoteEarlier when the cards suggestion was made, a different idea crept into my head where each player has a deck of playing cards or similar, draws a hand, and decides which to commit to the task.  Can't draw back up until you rest.  Don't want to commit more than are needed, but failure has consequences.  All participating players can submit one card face down (they're helping), and the active player can submit as many as desired.

It becomes more of a party game than an RPG, but it'd be fun to mess with later...

I think that would be suitable to RPG purposefuly leaving Simulation element behind to hover between G and N corners of Accursed Triangle.
Give cards more narrative than simply "pass simple task" power, and card management is gonna be obviously very gamey mechanics.
Then trivial tasks are just solved by GM fiat, while important moments by card shuffle.

Quote from: migo on March 31, 2022, 06:26:14 AM
I think if you're doing mixed dice, I don't think you want more than 3. So a Savage Worlds style d4 to d12, one for attribute, one for skill, and possibly one for a bonus of some sort, it'll be OK. You would have a pool ranging from 2d4 to 3d12. If you're doing roll over TN, you'd want to see where you set it. If the base TN is 8, then it's almost impossible for someone to succeed if they have the bottom rung ability. But that would have to be worked out in playtesting.

I agree, don't want to get it too gonzo out of the gate.

Maybe d6, d8, d10.  The former will be stodgier but more reliable, the latter more dynamic...

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 31, 2022, 08:59:49 AM
I think that would be suitable to RPG purposefuly leaving Simulation element behind to hover between G and N corners of Accursed Triangle.
Give cards more narrative than simply "pass simple task" power, and card management is gonna be obviously very gamey mechanics.
Then trivial tasks are just solved by GM fiat, while important moments by card shuffle.

Yes.  You'd need to customize the decks - and have a system for tailoring them as players develop their characters.  And you'd need something that makes the card types distinct.  Finally you'd need to use DriveThruCards or similar to print them with custom backs so they're easy to sort back out.

Then there's the matter of the GM's side of the table.  There's already a popular "dungeon in a deck" thing that could be incorporated.  But maybe traps, monsters, could use a similar system?

Honestly for ease of thought I'd leave them flat.  If we're using playing cards as an example, the "Goblin Battle" obstacle should need - I don't know - five card-points to overcome.  Fighter is in the lead and could handle them himself with his Jack, but wants to save it.  So he encourages his peers to help and lays down something middling.  They flip to reveal, total is nine, next encounter.

That sort of thing.

...and now I'm replying to myself, but playing card suits could be typed to have limits on their effectiveness.  Maybe hearts are for social situations, diamonds represent gear/wealth, clubs are brutality, and spades are subterfuge...

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.

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.

This is super cool!

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 30, 2022, 12:30:50 PM

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.

Totally, though that's really two different, orthogonal outcome sets, each with two possible result states. Just using the same die roll for both.

Adding mixes of different dice was something that happened in Earthdawn, with increasing Step values. It was still pretty uncommon to have to add more than 3 dice together.

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 31, 2022, 03:59:03 PM
Adding mixes of different dice was something that happened in Earthdawn, with increasing Step values. It was still pretty uncommon to have to add more than 3 dice together.

Yep, that's two votes for Earthdawn.  I'm guessing you guys are right.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 31, 2022, 09:30:53 AM
...and now I'm replying to myself, but playing card suits could be typed to have limits on their effectiveness.  Maybe hearts are for social situations, diamonds represent gear/wealth, clubs are brutality, and spades are subterfuge...

While interesting, you could get totally screwed by the luck of the draw. Unless it's a Saga-like trump for those situations. Also, looking at Saga, I would say only four suits isn't enough, you'd have to look at one of those specialty 8-suit decks.

Quote from: migo on April 01, 2022, 03:34:49 AM

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 31, 2022, 09:30:53 AM
...and now I'm replying to myself, but playing card suits could be typed to have limits on their effectiveness.  Maybe hearts are for social situations, diamonds represent gear/wealth, clubs are brutality, and spades are subterfuge...

While interesting, you could get totally screwed by the luck of the draw. Unless it's a Saga-like trump for those situations. Also, looking at Saga, I would say only four suits isn't enough, you'd have to look at one of those specialty 8-suit decks.

Yeah, if you're using the suits you're going to need to limit them to four things; and since any could come up on any draw, it should be a factor that could apply to any check. I'd be inclined to say "hearts = an advantage, spades = a cost, diamonds+clubs = normal."

This allows success w. advantage, normal success, success at cost, failure w. advantage, failure and failure w. cost as results of a single card draw (and there's nothing limiting you to just one card. For a percentile system you could do two draws; one for 10's and one for 1's). You can then include abilities that allow the suits, face cards and number of cards drawn to be differently than normal.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2022, 08:09:14 AM

Quote from: migo on April 01, 2022, 03:34:49 AMWhile interesting, you could get totally screwed by the luck of the draw.

Yeah, if you're using the suits you're going to need to limit them to four things; and since any could come up on any draw, it should be a factor that could apply to any check. I'd be inclined to say "hearts = an advantage, spades = a cost, diamonds+clubs = normal."

The potential to get screwed by bad luck is part of the point of having a randomizer in the first place, I'd argue.

The suit/trumping issue actually reminds me of a riff I did on the Castle Falkenstein rules, which use normal playing cards. Basically, the suits were classified by type of action as follows:  Physical/Derring-Do (Spades), Mental/Intellectual (Diamonds), Emotional/Personal (Hearts), and Social/Organizational (Clubs).  Spades were opposed to Diamonds and Hearts were opposed to Clubs.  A card is trump (played for full value) if its suit matches the action; it's opposed (played for one-quarter value) if its suit is the opposed suit; and it's neutral (played for half value) if it's one of the other two suits.  (CF's original rules were simpler; basically, a trump suit card was full value and all others were worth only one point, but you could play multiple cards to boost a low trump if you needed to.)

The strategy was basically to see how long you could hang on to high cards for their trump use before giving in to the temptation to play them on lesser challenges where they might still win, even at neutral value, because you didn't have any useful trumps for those lesser challenges.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 01, 2022, 08:23:25 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2022, 08:09:14 AM

Quote from: migo on April 01, 2022, 03:34:49 AMWhile interesting, you could get totally screwed by the luck of the draw.

Yeah, if you're using the suits you're going to need to limit them to four things; and since any could come up on any draw, it should be a factor that could apply to any check. I'd be inclined to say "hearts = an advantage, spades = a cost, diamonds+clubs = normal."

The potential to get screwed by bad luck is part of the point of having a randomizer in the first place, I'd argue.

OK, that's fair. But when you look at why people prefer alternatives to dice is because they offer you some randomization without being subject to screwed the way dice can screw you. So if you have a system with cards, players who would be interested in it at all would probably have a very different expectation of how the system should work.

Quote from: migo on April 01, 2022, 08:33:07 AM(W)hy people prefer alternatives to dice is because they offer you some randomization without being subject to screwed the way dice can screw you. So if you have a system with cards, players who would be interested in it at all would probably have a very different expectation of how the system should work.

Agreed. The advantage of cards is the ability to allocate your best chances to the actions where you most want them to succeed. The dis-advantage of cards is the temptation to hoard them as long as possible and then wind up getting frustrated when one spends them just a challenge or two before they're really needed -- what might be called the "Queen Susan's Horn" problem, after Prince Caspian:

Quote"If your Majesty is ever to use the Horn," said Trufflehunter, "I think the time has now come."

"We are certainly in great need," answered Caspian. "But it is hard to be sure we are at our greatest. Supposing there came an even worse need and we had already used it?"

"By that argument," said Nikabrik, "your Majesty will never use it until it is too late."

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 01, 2022, 08:45:27 AM

Quote from: migo on April 01, 2022, 08:33:07 AM(W)hy people prefer alternatives to dice is because they offer you some randomization without being subject to screwed the way dice can screw you. So if you have a system with cards, players who would be interested in it at all would probably have a very different expectation of how the system should work.

Agreed. The advantage of cards is the ability to allocate your best chances to the actions where you most want them to succeed. The dis-advantage of cards is the temptation to hoard them as long as possible and then wind up getting frustrated when one spends them just a challenge or two before they're really needed -- what might be called the "Queen Susan's Horn" problem, after Prince Caspian:

Quote"If your Majesty is ever to use the Horn," said Trufflehunter, "I think the time has now come."

"We are certainly in great need," answered Caspian. "But it is hard to be sure we are at our greatest. Supposing there came an even worse need and we had already used it?"

"By that argument," said Nikabrik, "your Majesty will never use it until it is too late."

Saga also had an advantage there, since your hand was also your 'hit points', if you were hit, it was in your best interests to take the damage with your highest cards to maintain your hand size, rather than with lower cards while you hang on to your remaining high one.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2022, 08:09:14 AM

Quote from: migo on April 01, 2022, 03:34:49 AM
While interesting, you could get totally screwed by the luck of the draw. Unless it's a Saga-like trump for those situations. Also, looking at Saga, I would say only four suits isn't enough, you'd have to look at one of those specialty 8-suit decks.

Yeah, if you're using the suits you're going to need to limit them to four things; and since any could come up on any draw, it should be a factor that could apply to any check. I'd be inclined to say "hearts = an advantage, spades = a cost, diamonds+clubs = normal."

This allows success w. advantage, normal success, success at cost, failure w. advantage, failure and failure w. cost as results of a single card draw (and there's nothing limiting you to just one card. For a percentile system you could do two draws; one for 10's and one for 1's). You can then include abilities that allow the suits, face cards and number of cards drawn to be differently than normal.

Replying to both, first, that's where I'd see deck building coming in to play.  A rookie has a lot of cards they'd rather not draw, but the epic hero has very few.

And yes to both, again, the suits having advantage and disadvantage over each other would need to be a thing.

As well you could do Flux-like things like changing the rules for the character while the card is in play.

Ah. See I was thinking of it purely as a randomizer not as deck building and keeping hands. Instead of rolling dice, you draw a card for the 10's place and a card for the 1's place against a percentile with suits and face cards causing special results. Then you reshuffle for the next draw.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2022, 03:15:40 PM
I was thinking of it purely as a randomizer not as deck building and keeping hands. Instead of rolling dice, you draw a card for the 10's place and a card for the 1's place against a percentile with suits and face cards causing special results. Then you reshuffle for the next draw.

I think that would work better for a game where challenge draws are relatively infrequent.  Shuffling the deck after every draw seems like it would get dull pretty fast if you did it for, e.g., every exchange of blows in combat.

Besides, one of the tests of skill and judgement in using cards is precisely the challenge of remembering which cards have already been played from the deck and re-evaluating the odds of drawing what you need based on that changing information. Without cards going out of play for at least some length of time following use, that area of skill is lost.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 01, 2022, 06:22:24 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2022, 03:15:40 PM
I was thinking of it purely as a randomizer not as deck building and keeping hands. Instead of rolling dice, you draw a card for the 10's place and a card for the 1's place against a percentile with suits and face cards causing special results. Then you reshuffle for the next draw.

I think that would work better for a game where challenge draws are relatively infrequent.  Shuffling the deck after every draw seems like it would get dull pretty fast if you did it for, e.g., every exchange of blows in combat.

Besides, one of the tests of skill and judgement in using cards is precisely the challenge of remembering which cards have already been played from the deck and re-evaluating the odds of drawing what you need based on that changing information. Without cards going out of play for at least some length of time following use, that area of skill is lost.

Reshuffling after each draw also negates one of the advantages of a deck of cards over dice, which ends up really not being worth the extra effort.

I think the best mechanic is to draw a large hand, say ten.  A short rest lets you draw back up to ten.  A full rest means you shuffle.  Downtime lets you reconfigure your deck according to the rules.

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 08:09:14 AM
I think the best mechanic is to draw a large hand, say ten.  A short rest lets you draw back up to ten.  A full rest means you shuffle.  Downtime lets you reconfigure your deck according to the rules.

OK, so there you're already assuming you'll do a D&D 4e style action economy from the start. That can work, but I guess you really need to think whether it's desirable.

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 09:32:46 AM
OK, so there you're already assuming you'll do a D&D 4e style action economy from the start. That can work, but I guess you really need to think whether it's desirable.

"Really need" to think?  Why on earth is it that serious?

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 10:06:22 AM

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 09:32:46 AM
OK, so there you're already assuming you'll do a D&D 4e style action economy from the start. That can work, but I guess you really need to think whether it's desirable.

"Really need" to think?  Why on earth is it that serious?

4e was not a well received edition. It's why Pathfinder was so popular. If you're just making it for fun and just to play with your gaming group it doesn't matter if they like it, but if you're planning on publishing, elements from 4e are questionable.

Quote from: mcbobbo on March 29, 2022, 03:51:30 PM
I can't stop thinking about different dice resolution systems.  I feel like the "best one" is out there somewhere, and feel frustrated that I don't know what it is.  For example, I prefer target number systems with cumulative dice.  But I also prefer easy-to-follow target numbers, like percentages.  I think in percentages already anyway, so that's very natural to me.  And as a GM, it'd be easy to say guess a percentage of likelihood: "What are the chances you would fail to climb that wall?  Oh... 30% sounds good."  So today I'm noodling how to use cumulative dice to climb towards a percentage number.

I'm thinking factors.  Each one gives you (some) dice.  I'm also wondering if it would be cool or annoying to use differently shaped dice, so maybe:

Skill of 5d10, weapon quality 2d6, blessing 1d4 aiming for a Target Number of 60.

It's just a rough example.  Have you seen this before?  Am I remembering it from somewhere?

What do you think of it as a general idea?

There is no perfect system or mechanic... just good, really good, and shitty based on personal preferences.  As a game designer of nearly 40 years, I know what I'm talking about. 

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 02, 2022, 10:31:42 AM
There is no perfect system or mechanic... just good, really good, and shitty based on personal preferences.  As a game designer of nearly 40 years, I know what I'm talking about.

It felt like you were about to say something there for a second...

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 02, 2022, 10:31:42 AM
There is no perfect system or mechanic... just good, really good, and shitty based on personal preferences.

For me the criteria I think useful in judging a game mechanic are as follows (not necessarily in priority order):

1) Simple vs. Opaque. Is it easy to learn to use, and easy to understand and apply the results?
2) Evocative vs. Disruptive. Does it contribute to creating the atmosphere you want the gameplay to have, or does it knock players out of immersion whenever it's used?
3) Output Potential. How much information can a single use of the mechanic provide, from a single "yes-no" result to multiple rated aspects?
4) Physical Practicality. Does it use tools you can get anywhere in an easy space, or does it require you to buy custom products from the manufacturer or carry out external preparation first? (Cf. DragonRaid, the evangelical RPG where you had to memorize Bible quotes in advance to work certain in-game miraculous effects, or SAGA, which uses unique cards you can't replace if damaged except by going back to the publisher.)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 02, 2022, 12:48:20 PM
For me the criteria I think useful in judging a game mechanic are as follows (not necessarily in priority order):

1) Simple vs. Opaque. Is it easy to learn to use, and easy to understand and apply the results?

It can't be TOO simple, though, there has to be a balance.  You need some element of system mastery (or what I called obfuscation) to suspend disbelief.  The simplest system, a coin flip, is pretty much what the first version of the Mythic GM Engine did back in the day, and it was boring as hell.  To me at least.

I agree with the rest, just wanted to point that out.

You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 01:17:53 PM
You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

You're reading me backwards.

If it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring.

Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

Too much is obviously a problem.  But you need some.

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 02:39:55 PM

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 01:17:53 PM
You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

You're reading me backwards.

If it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring.

Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

Too much is obviously a problem.  But you need some.

I would say texture in an RPG comes from the interesting situations the setting places the PCs in. Mechanics which "get out of the way" for resolving things help to preserve that texture instead of distracting from it by requiring too much focus to perform and interpret.

Ultimately it comes down to focus. If your interest is rolling dice, sure, make that the focus with interesting elements. If your focus is the roleplaying and player choices then mechanics that are quick and easy to execute keep the focus on the roleplay and making the choices, not on the wait to if the choice was a good/successful one or not.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 02, 2022, 03:21:43 PM
I would say texture in an RPG comes from the interesting situations the setting places the PCs in. Mechanics which "get out of the way" for resolving things help to preserve that texture instead of distracting from it by requiring too much focus to perform and interpret.

Ultimately it comes down to focus. If your interest is rolling dice, sure, make that the focus with interesting elements. If your focus is the roleplaying and player choices then mechanics that are quick and easy to execute keep the focus on the roleplay and making the choices, not on the wait to if the choice was a good/successful one or not.

This is the walk and chew gum thing from earlier.  The mechanics and the conduct of the game are different things and can be employed to differing degrees of success.  You can have a game with excellent, textured mechanics AND focus on roleplay and choices.  They're not on a spectrum.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 02, 2022, 03:21:43 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 02:39:55 PMIf it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring. Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

I would say texture in an RPG comes from the interesting situations the setting places the PCs in. Mechanics which "get out of the way" for resolving things help to preserve that texture instead of distracting from it by requiring too much focus to perform and interpret.

Ultimately it comes down to focus. If your interest is rolling dice, sure, make that the focus with interesting elements. If your focus is the roleplaying and player choices then mechanics that are quick and easy to execute keep the focus on the roleplay and making the choices, not on the wait to if the choice was a good/successful one or not.

And it can also be a design goal to try for the best of both worlds.  One of the great things that The Riddle of Steel does with their combat system (I swear, Driftwood doesn't pay me, I'm just a fanboy) is that the atmosphere of managing commitment between attack and defense, and the feel of losing your energy and fighting ability as fatigue takes its tool on your reserves, is physically represented by the mechanics of allocating the Combat Pool of dice between rolls, and watching it shrink if you fight for too long.

The idea of simplicity in rules but complexity in outcome is useful as well. My go-to example here is, no pun intended, Go: very simple rules, very complex gameplay once all the ramifications and extrapolations of all the possible moves are taken into account.

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 02:39:55 PM

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 01:17:53 PM
You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

You're reading me backwards.

If it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring.

Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

Too much is obviously a problem.  But you need some.

What most players want is complexity in character design, not game mechanics. Make it easy enough that you can explain the system to them in 15 minutes and give them a pre-gen, but if they want to spend hours poring over options and building their own custom character they can.

QuoteIt can't be TOO simple, though, there has to be a balance.  You need some element of system mastery (or what I called obfuscation) to suspend disbelief.  The simplest system, a coin flip, is pretty much what the first version of the Mythic GM Engine did back in the day, and it was boring as hell.  To me at least.

I mean what suspension of disbelief has to do with complication of game engine itself?

Quote4e was not a well received edition. It's why Pathfinder was so popular. If you're just making it for fun and just to play with your gaming group it doesn't matter if they like it, but if you're planning on publishing, elements from 4e are questionable.

Are they? I mean sure 4e had many critics, but they went to 5e. Meanwhile fans of 4e were left on thin ice... so...

QuoteThis is the walk and chew gum thing from earlier.  The mechanics and the conduct of the game are different things and can be employed to differing degrees of success.  You can have a game with excellent, textured mechanics AND focus on roleplay and choices.  They're not on a spectrum.

But generally mechanics is in service of narrative not otherwise. Therefore mastery of system should link to fictional situation. Otherwise - why not use this mechanic love for boardgame where relations between fiction and mechanics are opposite - fiction is just flavour for fun mechanics. I don't think you can really serve two masters as Bible says - those things are not in spectrum but they need to be intimately connected. Meanwhile you seems to desire some interesting engine as divorced from what RP is about, for sake of engine.

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 02, 2022, 06:43:02 PMI mean what suspension of disbelief has to do with complication of game engine itself?

I would suggest that "preservation of immersion" is a slightly more accurate phrase in this context than "suspension of disbelief", although they're both phrases describing the same phenomenon: the capacity to invest emotion and excitement into the fictional happenings of the characters as if they were real. A mechanic that you have to think too hard about figuring out disrupts this state of mind.

Different players will have different thresholds for what constitutes "having to think too hard", of course. We should never forget that one of the great initial appeals of this hobby was that most games were designed to reward high time investment in learning all the elements and nuances of the system, such that one needed to consult the rulebooks as seldom as possible.

QuoteMeanwhile you seems to desire some interesting engine as divorced from what RP is about, for sake of engine.

That seems like it might be an overly harsh interpretation. Nothing's wrong with rules that are interesting enough in themselves to command player investment in their mastery, as long as they aren't so difficult to learn or use that more people are knocked out of immersion while using them than not. I'll freely admit to being a system monkey myself sheerly out of pure enjoyment of testing and manipulation.

Stephen gets it, and I feel the same way.

There's one master to serve - fun.  The game needs to be an enjoyable way to spend time.  Whether it passes any other purity test is up to those playing it to judge.