>Six-sided die
How do we fix it?
>>44097026
(1d6)d(1d6)
>>44097026
What's broken?
Use smaller pools of larger dice for things that should have a lot of random variation (ie 1d20) and use large numbers of small dice size for things should trend towards the middle (ie 4d6)
>>44097026
Let's add 3 extra faces.
>How do we fix it?
six sided dice is the fucking six sided dice, because it was common on many games before rpg.
there is nothing to fix
6 sided dice is the windows OS of the dices
>>44097026
I think your issue is rolling 2d6. Just roll 1d12. Solved
>>44097185
I don't understand why he doesn't just flip seven coins.
Make a percentile die where all the faces are between 2 and 12 (inclusive) and the distribution is the same as the sum of two six-sided dice. Same results with half the effort.
>>44097700
You seem to have RPG design backwards. You have dice mechanics to suit some design goal. Determine what you're using the dice to do and why: combat, skill checks, etc. Figure out what you want resolutions to look like, crits, degrees of success\failure, etc. Then pick dice and start formulating a system.
You seem clueless as fuck though, good luck
>>44097795
The phrasing on this is abrasive but this guy is correct. Dice mechanics are intended to suit a purpose. Consider what you want the dice to do, and then work out the math.
For your d12 versus 2d6 self-debate, consider how each system will feel. d12 is more random. Is this more exciting? More realistic? Does it add or remove power from the players? Does it "play" well?
>>44097026
Make the sides different sizes.
>>44097026
Roll three at once and add them together. Solved.
>>44098293
Brilliant! You get a nice s-curve. Maybe do a roll-under system and apply bonuses/penalties to the target number.
>>44098293
>>44098409
>GURPS wins again
>>44099291
Retard question here, but how do you dice math?
I'm working on a system (working model is rolling pools of d6, and keeping two) but I don't understand how to do the math longform. I know about anydice, but I want to work it out by hand.
Where do I go for a quick and dirty primer on how to do probability math, considering I haven't touched a math textbook in 10+ years?
>>44101863
I mean, 'output [highest 2 of Xd6]' just feels cheap. I wish I had actually paid attention in high school so I'd remember this stuff.
>>44097026
3-D printed dice with OLED-displayed RFID faces compatible with your smart phone.
>>44097026
That chart is wrong, the bar for '7 or higher' should be larger than the one for 'below 7'.
7 is the most-probably roll for 2d6, and the probabilities for all of the combinations above or all those below are equal, so adding the 7-chance to the above 7-chances should be greater than the below 7-chances/
>>44097338
I don't understand why he doesn't go through the lengthy process of building a quantum photon emission random number generator with an algorithm to filter results from 1-12 or 2-12 as desired.
>>44102587
>Same with the arm wrestling; that should be a direct comparison of Strength, not an opposed roll.
To expand on this, controlling the size of each component of a test is important. For a test that uses a skill, relevant stat, and a die roll for variance, changing the size of any of these relative to each other will alter both how the test plays out and how gameplay feels. In the greentext example above, anon has proposed removing variance altogether for a test that's also unlikely to have a skill based component. The result is the character with the better stat wins at arm wrestling every time, which is fairly realistic.
D&D 5e's "bounded accuracy" philosophy leans in the other direction; the portion of the test contributed by the die is quite a bit larger than that contributed by the character training.
>>44102587
>that should be a direct comparison of Strength, not an opposed roll.
Yeah, but that would be boring.
>>44103212
So is arm wrestling
>>44102587
>Arm Wrestling a direct comparison.
Ah, but does your system account for the difference between say, the strength of my friend, who loves arm wrestling, and builds his arms, and myself, who focuses on lifting strength with my legs, back, and shoulder?
OR technique, which can vastly change the outcome? Or the various conditions that can alter your effectiveness?
There's no precisely right answer, but you can start to see how game design can get fractally more complicated.
>>44102778
I don't understand whatever the hell you just said.
>>44103212
Yeah, no. Let's examine one consequence of making arm-wrestling a randomized strength contest in d20.
Lets say you have Brolic McMuscle with 30 strength (a +10 modifier), quite possibly the buffest dude in the goddamn universe. He's probably a god or something, because humans don't even get that strong. Then you have Wimpy Pencilneck and his 29 cousins, all of whom have 6 strength (a -2 modifier); so weak that they are encumbered by just 30 pounds of equipment,
Let's say Brolic is challenged to an arm-wrestling competition: He is to arm-wrestle all 30 of the Pencilneck cousins, one at a time with ample rest between each match. This should literally not even be a question; Pencilneck should certainly fail against a normal person, much less Brolic who would barely notice their resistance. But if you roll for it, Brolic has a 93% chance to beat each one, that comes out to [0.93^30=0.11] only an 11% chance to prevail.
>>44097067
I wanna see this bell curve
>>44104248
here ya go
the site is anydice.com
>>44104248
I did it. Looks funky
>>44104270
>>44104273
I really like this bell curve
>(2d2)d(1d10)
>>44104427
Take it my friend, it's yours!
But on a more serious note: are there any well-known systems that have you roll two (or more) dice and subtract one/some from others?
>>44097026
>that image
>chance of getting exactly 11 is the same as the chance of getting 11 or higher
>chance of getting below 3 is the same as the chance of getting exactly 3
what?
>>44104468
I believe in this chart 'X or higher' is actual 'higher than X', and likewise with the 'X or lower' bars; meaning that in the cases of 2 and 11 the chances of the numbers themselves and any lower/higher results is the same.
>>44104438
Feng Shui uses a two dice system where one die is positive and the other negative, and you add them both to your base ability.
>>44104478
Well, it actually says "below this", so it is comparing "X" to "lower than X". But the chance of getting exactly 3 is twice the chance of getting exactly 2 (2+1 and 1+2 vs. only 1+1). The same applies on the top end, where the chance to get exactly 11 is 2/36, while the chance to get above 11 is 1/36. Besides, we know red isn't "higher than X", because it's impossible to get higher than 12, and yet it has the same probability as green on 12.
>>44104622
>But the chance of getting exactly 3 is twice the chance of getting exactly 2
Which is to say, the chance of getting exactly 3 is twice the chance of getting below 3 (since 2 is the only result below 3 on 2d6).
>>44097026
What's wrong with it?
>>44104620
While interesting, the curve isn't actually any different than 2d6, just shifted by... I think seven?
>>44104940
>While interesting, the curve isn't actually any different than 2d6, just shifted by... I think seven?
Yup. It's centered on zero, equivalent to 2d6-7.
Make a custom D20:
01 = 2
02 = 3
03 = 4
04 = 4
05 = 5
06 = 5
07 = 6
08 = 6
09 = 7
10 = 7
11 = 7
12 = 7
13 = 8
14 = 8
15 = 9
16 = 9
17 = 10
18 = 10
19 = 11
20 = 12
Or something similar, as you like.
>>44105168
>Make a custom D20
A custom D30 might be better
>All this bell curve fetish
Why are you so obsessed with mediocre results /tg/?
At least in games you could go for something else
>>44105235
Because they never see curves IRL.
>>44105253
>>44102519
>it turned out to be too restrictive
Use more d6s. Bam, your bell curve now covers a larger range of possible results.
>>44105168
>Custom d20
It kinda looks like 2d6, but it's funky enough that I'd just stick with the 2d6.
>>44105235
>All this bell curve fetish
Because we want core mechanics that have room for embarrassing failure and great success, but don't make elite warriors devolve into slapstick shenanigans every 20 strokes for the lulz. Comedy is fine, but it's a bit much when you have so many extreme fuck-ups from people who the system considers to be experts.
>>44105376
>slapstick shenanigans
I don't know what sort of shitty games you are referring to, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single game that does this. And no, "critical miss on a 1" is not slapstick shenanigans, unless you use one of those retarded (and homebrewed) fumble charts that have not been an actual rule since forever.
>>44105454
>I have a 5% chance of flailing like an idiot for 6 seconds, no matter how good I am
>this is a good thing.
>>44097026
3-1d6 ? Anyone try that? Roll 3 die and roll another to reduce score. Guess it isn't done for a reason, but wonder what the bellcurve looks like.
>>44105528
>>44105538
That's not supposed to happen.
>>44105538
>>44105550
So it's just a super steep bellcurve from -3 to 17. That's really useless and now I know why no system uses it.how about 1d20+/-d3 (1-3 = -, 4-6 = +)?
This looks like a good place to ask a question that doesnt really deserve its own thread. Does anyone know of a dice program that could handle a really wierd dice system I use? It would be nice to not have to chart the whole thing by hand and to be able to clickroll on online games, bit no program ive found can understand it.
Xd12 [x=stat], 10,11,12=success. 11=one bonus die, 12=two
On top of that, skills can be 1-5 in value, and cause all rolls equal to or less than that value to also be successes. . . But if you count any successes this way you forfeit any bonus dice (safe bet vs gamble for higher)
I know how to do the whole thing on paper, but it takes forever to chart out every stat,skill,target combination
>>44104438
>But on a more serious note: are there any well-known systems that have you roll two (or more) dice and subtract one/some from others?
gurps have that on one of their alien generator tables
>>44105631
>how about 1d20+/-d3 (1-3 = -, 4-6 = +)?
I'm using:
function: add A:n to B:n if C:n is above D:n else subtract it {
if C > D { result: B + A }
result: B - A
}
output [add d3 to d20 if d6 is above 3 else subtract it]
>>44105673
You can't do the whole thing in one. You need two functions, one for the bonus dice and one for the skill rolls.
>>44105750
Oh fuck, I cropped off the roll scale. -2, 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25
>>44105770
True, for the charting. The player makes the decision after seeing the first roll but that doesnt really effect probability i suppose, not in any way measurable.
charting out just skill rolls isnt hard. How about just normal rolls? I cant find anything that can have different exploding rules for 11 and 12.
>>44105855
I'll take a crack at an Anydice function.
>>44105862
I think this should work. Change the 'max function depth' parameter to set how many dice it will roll before stopping the explosion.
function: explode N:n {
if N = 11 { result: N + [explode d12] }
if N = 12 { result: N + [explode 2d12] }
result: N
}
set "maximum function depth" to 5
output [explode 5d12]
Change that 5d12 to anything you like.
>>44105899
Here's one with MFD set to 10.
>>44105899
>>44105914
Oh yes. The average is 32.5.
>>44101863
>>44102214
I lapped all this kind of stuff up in high school through to uni and did a lot of it in my spare time from Warhammer, so I can pretty much calculate odds from recurring rolls and the like in my head. I'm not certain how to help you really. If you really like probability mechanics, just keep on thinking about examples of rolls.
If you like counting stuff in general you'll be alright even if you don't push the skill. If you're not a counter-type person, don't worry about it, you're better served with different skills.
>>44105914
Wow thanks a lot, i tried anydice but i guess i just didn't speak its language. When i get home im sure i can figure out how to make it show successes rather than cumulative addition pretty easily.
>>44106069
Oh successes, shit. That's going to be harder.
>>44106113
Well, I've got this, but Anydice auto-fails any command that takes more than 5 seconds to execute, so I can't tell if it'll work.
function: count and explode N:n {
if N = 11 { result: [count {10, 11, 12} in {N}] + [count and explode 1d12] }
if N = 12 { result: [count {10, 11, 12} in {N}] + [count and explode 2d12] }
result: [count {10, 11, 12} in {N}]
}
set "maximum function depth" to 1
output [count and explode 1d12]
>>44101863
>>44102214
>Retard question here, but how do you dice math?
It's pretty simple, if long-winded to calculate. Basically you do pic related. Sketch a tree graph for the dice, determine every possible outcome, assign probabilities to each line segment, etc. At the end of each branch you'll multiply the probabilities on the path it took to get there. Then you sum together the probabilities for the same end results (i.e. the separate probabilities for outcomes of "B" all get added together). That gets you the distribution, and from there you can sum up ranges to get "greater than X", "less than Y", etc.
If you ask me, it's an extremely tedious job which is best left to computers and savants. All that really matters IMO is the probability distribution coming out the end of the process, and the number of computations the player's brain is expected to make.
>>44097026
>How do we fix it?
Roll and Keep.
>>44101863
not gonna bother typing it out because it's a lot of words to describe high school probability.
Basically it comes down to
1 die, high variance
2 or more die, larger max rolls, but your results will cluster around the average roll
+ or - modifiers move the "average" results up or down. simple as that.
Easiest example, 1d20 can roll between 1 and 20 with an average of 10.5. This is why the base DC in DnD is 10, it means with an +0 bonus you have a 50% chance of success. Higher or lower DCs represent difficulty increases or decreases of 5% per number.
>>44104237
If the outcome is of such insane odds (let's say 90%+) you shouldn't need to roll unless the roll is dramatic
This is the whole "take 20" ruling, if there is no penalty/little chance for failure don't waste time rolling. If Sneaky McStaberson is trying to pick a lock in an empty room you're not going to make him keep rolling until he passes the DC, you just compare his skill check +20 to the lock DC and say if he can pick it or not.
>>44097088
>>44104677
Seconding this. d6s are fine.
>>44097026
The more dice you throw in there, the higher the chance of fairly average results, if you want more swinginess just roll with fewer dice, dice with more faces, or both.
What's there to fix? If you don't like how it plays out, there are tons of options.
It's like asking how to fix the colour red because you don't like the colour red, a sane person just picks another colour instead of obsessing over the thing they don't like.
>>44102519
The obvious solution is to enforce a die minimum, with no maximum. A system that does this would use a lot of small dice, and probably also use an exploding dice mechanic (though there are surely other mechanics that can effectively remove the maximum roll).
For example, you could have all contests resolved by rolling Xd4. Every 3 and a 4 is a success. Every 4 is an exploding success, which lets you roll another d4, which can also explode.
Then you simply balance all the trivial tasks so that almost all characters will automatically succeed on them simply by rolling all 1s.
BAM:
No failures on trivial tasks
Exciting stuff can still happen.
The only problem is that shit takes forever to resolve.
>>44105528
Congratulations. You've just rolled 4d6 and disguised it.
>>44101863
If you don't understand the effect it has on probabilities, how the fuck are players going to?
It does rather spoil a game when you have no idea how good your PC is at doing a task, and character advancement consists of "choosing this option might improve things? I don't know how much"
god I hate dice pool
>>44107053
That's odd. I've found that systems where advancement involves getting extra die to roll have a very easy to understand relationship between character growth and mechanics. There's something about holding the extra die in your hands that really brings the point home "my character improved".
It's better than a simple and abstract +x to the roll IMO.
>>44107076
It gives you a feeling of improvement, but do you know what it actually did to your chances of success, apart from 'increased them'?
For instance, here's your chances of getting at least X successes in SR4 with dicepools of size 1-8.
>>44097026
roulette wheel
you have partitioned walls from the inside to the outside of the wheel. the inner most is a d4 with miltiple numbers of 1-4, the next one out is a d6 with the same principle, so on and so on till it stops at i don't know lets say a d100. for multiple dice you just use multiple balls.
the probability of getting the highest number is the same as the middle number that is to say the likelihood of getting a 6 would be the same as a 3.
>>44107101
Rhetorical question time!
Why do you need to know your exact chances of success, and the improvement of that statistic?
Would you have access to that information in the real world? Like do you know how much your chances of success improve in a game of football by achieving a new personal best in the weight room?
Your complaint seems more related to wanting things out of role playing games that they shouldn't necessarily provide.
>>44107135
>Why do you need to know your exact chances of success, and the improvement of that statistic?
So that you know when investing more points into a skill is becoming worthless.
>>44107135
>Would you have access to that information in the real world? Like do you know how much your chances of success improve in a game of football by achieving a new personal best in the weight room?
I'll take "Sports Science and betting odds" for $500, Alex.
>>44104620
There's another one that uses a similar mechanic, except the lower die is negative. Also, it's a pair of d10s.
>>44107153
There's also Alternity, where the system is built around d20+-dX, where dX is the one that gets all the mods. d20-d20 is best, d20+Nd20 is worst.
>>44107145
Wouldn't those points only be worthless if they were something your character wouldn't do?
This discussion is trending towards a roleplaying vs rollplaying debate.
I'd contend that you can still calculate the value of a skill investment in either die pools or mods. The goal for most systems then should be to encourage the most feeling in the game, and for that die pools is superior.
>>44107205
>die pools is superior.
No it's not. Mods are faster, simpler, and cleaner. The only thing dice pools gets you is the feeling of throwing a bucket of dice at a table, followed by the sinking feeling that some of them have bounced off the table and vanished forever.
>>44107231
I've never had a die vanish forever. What's wrong with the floor under your table?
>>44107205
>The goal for most systems then should be to encourage the most feeling in the game,
The goal for most systems should be to work well.
>>44107264
Work well at what?
Encouraging feelings in the players.
>>44107283
>Encouraging feelings in the players.
This is the marketing-speak levels of meaningless bull.
Who gives a shit what feelings they evoke in the players? The system has to work. No ifs, ands, or buts. If the system doesn't function well on a mathematical level, nobody will give a shit about your game.
>>44107135
Why have stats or rolling at all, then?
If a player cannot tell what effect his stats or rolls will have on an outcome, you might as well just have secret numbers that the GM can do (or make up) instead.
Dice pools have no advantage over such a system except that you get to throw impractical quantities of plastic everywhere.
>>44097140
D9s are stupid. Either rolling logs or hideous hollowed out monstrosities.
>>44097147
>Dices
Die
>>44107327
D10, reroll on a 10. Not that there's any reason to use a D9
>>44107313
My issues with dicepools is that they make tactical play impossible; you cannot gauge whether one option is mechanically superior to another.
And if the game isn't INTENDED to be mechanically tactical (we should all roleplay our actions instead), why are the mechanics still there but obfuscated? Rather than determining whether I chase after him or throw something at his legs, why can't I just roll my Tracking Apprentice Of Wolf Shaman against his Trickster Free From Consequence and THEN decide what happened?
Please stop making me play things that aren't Heroquest.
>>44107378
>you cannot gauge whether one option is mechanically superior to another.
Well, you can, but it takes a program like Anydice to show you the curves.
>Please stop making me play things that aren't Heroquest.
No, you'll have to learn a good system some time.
>>44107378
How do dice pools make tactical play impossible? Just use certain rules with your pool, like exploding dice, rerolls, a different color die that represents a specific thing (wide/length/success), etc.
>>44107378
>My issues with dicepools is that they make tactical play impossible; you cannot gauge whether one option is mechanically superior to another.
...what? X die at Y target numbers gives you an average of Z successes.
>>44107399
The topic of the argument is that such mechanics in a dicepool system are statistically too complex for a player to gauge the potential result.
Why?
>>44107392
>Well, you can, but it takes a program like Anydice to show you the curves.
Oh boy, that sounds like a riveting session. Maybe after that we can compare the efficiency of our sorting algorithms.
>>44107445
Rollplayers man. Not even once.
>>44107457
I mean, I actually LIKE mechanically complex gameplay with lots of tactics. I play lots of war games, and I enjoy playing RPGs like that too; for the small scale and more personal nature of it.
But systems you can't *understand* enough to play like that are just the worst of both worlds.
>>44105673
Other than the fact that no one has that many d12s, I really like this system. But yeah like the other anon said, the process couldn't be totally automated, there would have to be two separate processes after the first roll, one for the 'safe bet' and one for the bonus dice 'gamble'. Which would depend on player choice.
>>44104438
Fate has an option to use d6 - d6 instead of Fate dice.
>>44107632
The whole zero-centered d3 thing that Fudge/Fate dice have going is so cool though.
>>44104438
The new star wars have that.
Edge of Empire is the only one I've played, but it's probably same on the other ones as well.
You have positive towards action, positive towards effects, triumphant effect, Disaster effect, negative towards action and negative towards effect.
>>44104438
Legend of the 5 Rings has you roll some number of d10s and pick a certain fewer number to keep. I don't think you actually roll and subtract what you rolled, though.
>>44107436
Surely that isn't a problem? They give a better bell curve than a single large dice but leave an element of unpredictability. Surely as a player I'm going to be able to say whether an action has a better chance without needing to go check the precise numbers of it? Just like real life I'd be able to make a decent guess about which action leads to the best chance of success.
>>44107298
It's not marketing bullshit.
A machine/system/etc has to have a purpose. You can have the most efficiently designed machine in the entire fucking world, and if all it accomplishes is meaningless, purposeless work, it's useless, and you won't sell anything.
Define the purpose for your mathematically functioning system. Invariably, that purpose is fun in RPGs.
>>44107794
It is, I love it. I don't know why anyone would use d6-d6, bit it's there.
>>44104438
It isn't a well known system. But the End of the World rpgs use a weird system of positive and negative d6s. It's kind of interesting.
>>44104273
Why is it impossible to roll a six followed by six sixes?
>>44108007
When we refer to 'dice pool systems' we mean one where e.g. you roll 5 D6 and the number of dice that come up 5+ is what determines the result.
Advancement or abilties in such systems increase the number of dice rolled, add to the successes, lower the target number for a success, allow rerolls etc
this makes the output complex to the point where a player cannot understand the mathematics
>>44107520
You're conflating a lot of things here.
You're conflating modifiers/ease of understanding with tactical and mechanically complex games. This is easily seen as false with even the smallest amount of thought.
As far as understanding goes, I've literally never had a problem understanding the implications of +1 die. That confers enough information for players to make adequate decisions.
At a certain point, systems can get too easy to evaluate. As an extreme example: A system where everything is determined and all information is visible. Imagine a system where I all things are determined by which actor has the highest stat. So a +6 to bumfighting will always let me beat a lowly +5 bumfighter, and I will always lose to a +7 bumfighter. In this system, I will always know when my attacks will succeed, and when they will fail, and there is no mechanical reason to ever go with a failing attack.
This system would be terrible. Systems need to be designed to prevent players knowing with any certainty that their actions will succeed, except in the most trivial of cases. What we're discussing is how much obsfuscation is ideal. You erroneously think die pool systems make it impossible to effectively evaluate the likely success or failure of an action. You're wrong. My contention is that die pools hit the sweet spot between prediction and uncertainty. They're certainly better from a roleplaying perspective.
Absolutely none of what I just said in that meandering wall of text has anything to do with whether a game is tactical or mechanically complex.
>>44097026
You don't. You use another system.
With so many mentions of how systems need to have a certain feel/purpose...
What actually gives systems such an aesthetic, and how does that make it suited for some specific goal?
>>44102519
>Nah, I just am very indecisive about what I want from this. Actually, that's not true(...)
10/10
>>44108091
You want to roll seven sixes in a row on six-sided dice.
(1/6)^7 = 0.00000357
That's 3.6 times in 1,000,000 tries.
>>44097026
maybe I'm just having a brain fart, but the fuck is this graph?
100% or higher of rolling a 2 with 2d6?
The fuck is this shit
>>44109880
It says right on the graph that a 2 has a much less than 10% chance. You're looking at the wrong bar.
>>44109880
Nevermind, I was in fact having a bout of retardation. Fixed it when I said it out loud.
>>44108095
>This system would be terrible.
The rest of your post is spot on, but this is actually wrong.
You're takl,ing about diceless systems like Amber, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, or Lords of Olympus.
While it's true you can generally tell when an attack will succeed or fail, that doesn't make it uninteresting. Much like chess, the goal in such a game is to manage your resources and maneuver for advantage, forcing your opponent to spend his resources on defense and hopefully push him into a position he can't escape from.
>>44108475
It's kind of an art, but different mechanics give players a different window into the possibilities of what they can do, providing a different feel. Like the diceless game above grants you very much the feel of playing as a powerful, nigh-omnipotent being at war with others.
>>44107375
This isn't getting enough credit.
>>44107248
>Not playing over sewer grates
Teach them for not using dice towers.
>>44102793
Arm Wrestliing is a poor example of removing skill, Because most arm wrestlers are quite skilled. Womens champs table beefy Mr Universe types every time. Not to say strength doesn't help, But it doesn't make you the best.
>>44108475
My basic judge is "When you roll the dice, what are the most likely outcomes?"
For example, in D&D, with an average difficulty of 10 and most characters having a bonus between +2 and +5 to 1d20 on a given action, you characters can soar through a lot of the dangers that would inhibit regular people, and go right for the big risk-reward things. As well, if you fail a roll, there's no consistent mechanical consequence- you can fail skill checks all day, and it's up to the DM to interpret the failure as to whether it even translates into anything in-game.
Compare to Apocalypse World. There, you roll 2d6+stat (which go from -3 to +3), and you have multiple consistent outcomes.
Greater than 10 gives you a near-perfect success, no worries.
7-9 gives you a partial success, where you have to make a choice about what exactly you'd like to happen, and more importantly what you'll sacrifice to make that happen.
6 or less gets you fucked; you don't succeed, and furthermore the DM is required to make a hard move (i.e. something that screws with one or more players).
It creates an entirely different dynamic. Mathematically, you're inclined to get partial successes even with a high modifier, and there is a clear and present danger with every roll that you might make things worse if you fail. It creates a lot of give and take (especially because the system is PvP) where people jockey around for position, only using dice when necessary, rather than for every interaction.
>>44106193
>>44106224
Thanks guys. I was hoping that someone had an algorithm for dice pools, but oh well, anydice can do it.
On the subject of dice pools, I find that most players understand 'More dice=better chance of success' and they're happy to leave it at that. I have never played with someone IRL who insists on doing the math in any system to work out their chances of success, they can eyeball it compared to the DC and say, "yeah, it'll probably work."
If it was so important that everyone fully understand exactly what their odds are, we'd all play percentile systems.
>>44110912
>7-9 gives you a partial success, where you have to make a choice about what exactly you'd like to happen, and more importantly what you'll sacrifice to make that happen.
>6 or less gets you fucked; you don't succeed, and furthermore the DM is required to make a hard move (i.e. something that screws with one or more players)
My question then would be what exactly defines these consequences? Is there a set mechanic for what these consequences should be?
Otherwise, it seems little more than the GM making things up. Which, well, seems flimsy at best and really no different for how DnD does it.
>>44113165
Yeah, AW has set mechanics for what happens on those kinds of rolls.
For example, if you're fighting someone who is fighting back, you make a Seize by Force move. When you get 10+, you can pick three of these options, when you get 7-9 you can pick two.
you take definite hold of it (the fluffy option, for when you want to get a specific thing out of a fight)
you suffer little harm (-1 harm to you)
you inflict terrible harm (+1 harm to them)
you impress, dismay or frighten your enemy (fluffy for NPCs, but PCs have to make a check to act against you)
On a miss, the MC/GM/DM checks a set list of moves and makes one that fits the story best. Options include 'Separate someone', 'announce off-screen badness,' and 'turn their move back on them.'
>>44113381
Well hot damn, that actually sounds pretty good, I gotta admit.
>>44107101
I like this a lot less than I would have imagined before looking at it.
>>44113457
AW is one of my favourite systems. It's damn easy to pick up and play, if you're a creative DM things can move so damn fast and fun (it helps my intro to AW was with the best DM I've ever gamed with), and you get to play a larger than life badass.DW is shit, though, as are a lot of the hacks, but the core game is great
>>44113457
>>44113654
Here, have the playbooks.
>>44097026
Since it rolls like shit, take a dodecahedron and number it 1-6 twice.
>>44113982
Doublesix Dice already did this.
>>44111104
>I was hoping that someone had an algorithm for dice pools
You can program a computer to do basically does what we describe (that's essentially what Anydice is). I actually made a few functions in R because I was dissatisfied with Anydice timing me out on diepools greater than 29.
>If it was so important that everyone fully understand exactly what their odds are
I like to know it when making a character. If I want to make a guy who's job is to do XYZ and he's supposed to be competent, then I'll work his stats until the numbers match the fluff. You can't be much of an elite sharpshooter when you only have a 40% chance to hit someone in ideal conditions.
It's also helpful for understanding the lore and maintaining perspective. If I learn that, on average, that it takes 8 attacks from a normal dude to down a specific enemy, then I know how impressive it is for a PC to do it in 2 or 3. Similarly, if I see a statblock for an "elite" warrior, then running the numbers tells me exactly how elite he really is and to what extent people should be scared of or impressed by him.
>>44114089
Do they have 1-4 printed three times on a dodecahedron? Or at least printed twice on an octahedron?
>>44114173
Yeah, if you would need that for some reason?
>>44114243
Caltrops are shit. Ergo, it's needed.
>>44105463
I'd question why your DM is making you fight things that are that far below you.
>>44097026
>>Six-sided die
>How do we fix it?
By surgically altering the die's genitals?
Roll xD6, where X is your STAT/MOD/Whatever.
1 and 2 succeed.
3 and 4 succeed, then explode.
5 and 6 succeed, then explode twice.
Exploding Dice can be banked to be used like fate points.
Exploding Dice can themselves Explode.
All challenges are balanced around a player with average stats (and therefore average die pool). Say this uses an average stat of 10.
Then trivial things should require 10 successes, because any given roll is going to get 10 successes.
Easy, but still failable activites should require 12 successes,
Normal activities, 15.
Hard activities, 20
legendary activities 25.
If you fail any activity by more than 5 degrees of success, the DM gets to take actions against your character.
Numbers need tweaking, and the die most likely explode too much, but I think I just created a roadmap to the perfect system. Enjoy /tg/.
>>44114921
This just seems like a hassle
>>44114976
It reminds me a little of roll and keep in complexity.
>>44114984
Its not difficult to do, just seems too time consuming.
>>44114976
>>44114921
Or how about coins.
You get a penny per stat, heads are two successes, tails are one. If you get all heads, you can flip another coin to add to your total number of successes per action. If that turns up heads, you can roll again, and again, stopping any time you want, or whenever you get tails. This is an exploding crit.
If you get all tails, you must keep flipping one at a time until you get a heads, and each tails you flip now counts instead as a failure/reduction. This is the equivalent of natural ones/serious failures.
DM determines consequences of actions based on how many successes above or below the target you were. In a crit situation, the successes/failures can be more extreme.
If the number of coins you would flip is greater than or equal to the task, you skip the flip and automatically succeed.
Explosions are still present both ways, but much less common place. They're probably more time consuming, but it works fine, considering the rarity.
>>44115098
I've never cared for explosive crits, so this just seems like it would take too long for me
>>44115098
Someday, somebody is going to create an RPG system based around a tedious series of coin-flips.
>>44115164
The explosive crits would be rare, but I see your point.
As far as time, on a standard "roll" you'd just toss however many coins on the table after shaking them in your hand, and count the successes.
Not sure if someone already mentioned this, but can't you just treat one die as a coin flip? If it's 4-6, add 6 to your second roll, or if it's 1-3 add nothing?
>>44114921
You're blowing up more than Syria, senpai. Counting the results, and then rerolling repeatedly, will take a long time every roll.
On a side note, your average stat should match average difficulty, unless you want everyone to fail a bunch doing trivial activities.
>>44115306
Yes.
You can use any die to replace any other die.
See:
>>44115240
So for example, you could use a d6, convert it to a coin flip, and then convert from that to a d10.
>>44115279
It's just a different set of probabilities for results. if the game required a lower deviation from the mean, that's what you would use. It doesn't carry any inherent advantages over a different resolution mechanic.
>>44102793
Arm wrestling is entirely a matter of leverage, not raw strength. Size and technique can best tactless muscle mass alone and often does. There's also the minor psychological component that affects performance. Frequently proffessional arm wreslting contenders are not the biggest guys in the room, though granted between those left within a sample of high skilled competators only the larger ones do tend to win. But simulacra is dumb.
>>44115448
You can watch the video of a pro arm wrestler vs The Mountain.
He cheats like fuck!
