D&D 4E 4E: Resolution & Statistical Curves

[drakhe]

more dice!

I went for the other dice-based resolution.

Of the proposed options, I like 3d6 for it's nice curve, and D% because to me that's the simplest option to adjudicate, but my choice would go to a system like either FUDGE or L5R/7thSea. That is a system where modifiers are added dice instead of a +/- modifier. Judging outcome by a level of success gives a wider range/palette of outcomes rather then just yes/no(/maybe). The L5R system I like especialy as the player has greater freedom in his action. It's easier to fail a roll if you should need to as you decide what dice to keep from those rolled.

On the other hand, I don't mind the current D20 & modifier, the "system" of a RPG never dictates my game, the setting does. To me the "system" (rules & mechanic) are nothing more than an aid to judge contention/competition/random events)

Drakhe

 

[A'koss]

I do quite like die progression and use it for some elements of my homebrew game - damage for example.

1 -1d2 - 1d3 - 1d4 - 1d6 - 1d8 - 1d10 - 1d12 - 1d8+1d6 - 2d8 - 1d10+1d8 - 2d10 - 1d12+1d10 - 2d12...

Instead of static modifiers (+1, +2, +3...) you have "step" modifiers (+1 bonus = +1 step). A fighter with a longsword and a total of +8 (normal) damage would inflict 2d12 damage using die progression.

Of course, applying this rule to attack rolls, saves and skill checks creates a different dyanamic to the game...

Cheers!

 

[arscott]

I'm of the opinion that added dice are more trouble that they're worth. they take up more time than a static modifier would, and unless you use fictional dice, you end up with some interesting jumps in your bonus.

Alternity's system averaged +2.5, +3.5, +4.5, +6.5, +11.5, +21, +32.5...
which means there was no equivalent of a +1 bonus.

I think that the d20 resolution mechanic works pretty well. If people find that too random (and I do agree to some extent), then the solution isn't to change the resolution method, it's to use larger modifiers.

For instance: currently, an ability score adds (score-10)+2 to a check. that means that if a person with strength 8 wanted to break down an door (DC 15), he'd have to roll 16 or better on a d20, whereas somebody with strenght 16 needs a 12. If you just changed the strenght modifier to (score-10), then the first person would need an 18, and the second would only need a 9.

 

[Stalker0]

I love dnd, but after playing Silhouette's system for a little while (Tribe 8 in particular), multiple dice systems just seem to model a lot of things much better.

In particular that the more skilled you are:

1) Decreases the chance of fumbles.
2) Makes bonuses more beneficial (+1 to each of 2 d6's tends to give you better results than +1 to 1d6)

 

[S'mon]

Re d% systems - I've played standard Runequest, where you roll under a fixed skill % to succeed - what Tweet calls a "Platonic Ideal" system, because chance-to-succeed is presented as an actual 'thing in itself', rather than a variable dependent on task difficulty. This approach can work ok for attribute checks, but for skill use by and large it sucks IMO. Rolling 70% under your to-hit score only to see your opponent roll under his Parry score for the fifteenth time is incredibly frustrating. Finally hitting just to find you've struck him in his (unused) left arm, thanks to the random hit location table, is just icing on the cake.

To rectify this, we went to an opposed roll system of % die added to % skill, matched vs opponent's roll + skill. This worked far far better, but showed up the problem of excessive granularity - adding roll of 67% to skill 89% every attack is a pain, adding d20 roll of 12 to attack bonus 18 gives just the same but is a lot easier to count up. I think d20's 5% increments is intuitively about the right level of detail for task resolution, and for a linear resolution system I do think it's the die to use.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think d20 is the best level of granularity. It's easy to "feel" the difference of a 5%-step, but below that it's not.

For instance, a music magazine (or movie, games, whatever...) with reviews sometimes chooses the percentage scale, but it is rarely meaningful to distingiush between a 72% and 73%, it just feels the same. OTOH it's still possible to percieve the difference between a 70% and a 75%.

Besides this fact, a more granularity-fine system would not be bad at all, but a +1 or -1 on rolls would tend to slip out of player's perception.

 

[Jdvn1]

Gary Gygax said he liked the randomness of the d20. I think I agree with him there.