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
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
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
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.