As fond as I am of weird dice and interesting mechanics, I'm not sure if Asura's weird 3dR (where dR = {-3,-2,-1,1,2,3}) rolling mechanic is the way to go any more. It's pretty swingy, which, to a point, is desirable-- I feel like FATE's 4dF (i.e., 4d3-8) isn't quite random enough for my liking-- but it may be too much so. More practically, if this game is ever going to be played at a real table, it would be nice to use dice that normal gamers are likely to actually have.
I think a big problem is that while the mean of any roll is still 0, the lack of a 0 on each die means that the mode is +/-2. I believe this, in itself, contributes greatly to the "swingy" quality. Also, the standard deviation of an Asura roll is 3.74, which playtesting has revealed is kind of high. I do, however, want to keep something resembling a bell curve, so single-die solutions are out.
My leading contender right now is 2d6-2d6, or, if you prefer, 4d6-14. It still involves a sane number of dice being rolled, and I think the probability curve is a little less crazy. It has a lower standard deviation of 3.42, as well. The other one I kind of like is exploding d6 - exploding d6. That seems like it might be a pain in practice, though, and if I allow it to explode indefinitely, it's got an even higher standard deviation.
Any thoughts?
I like the exploding d6 - ed6 quite a lot, but I'd constrain it in some fashion. Perhaps limited in number of explosions by highest Trait.
Thank you for the suggestion. I'm not sure if I like that, mainly from the perspective of explosions on the negative die-- you're being (potentially) punished for having a higher trait. It kind of reminds me of early WoD where you had a higher chance of a botch when you rolled more dice. Of course, I could possibly only do that on the positive die, which would solve the problem, but I'm not sure if the added bookkeeping is worth it. Infinite exploding d6 - single exploding d6 only has a mean of 0.08, so it isn't a huge advantage or anything.
My thoughts about 2d6-2d6: http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/musings/2d6-2d6/
Quote from: isomage
My thoughts about 2d6-2d6: http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/musings/2d6-2d6/
That was an excellent read.
Just curious, what would be wrong with just 1d6-1d6? Is -5 to 5 too small a range?
Yes, that's correct. I feel like the range is too small.
I've done a bit of testing with 2d6-2d6 and so far I like it. :D
I actually like small ranges. Playing Pathfinder with my friends I have grown increasingly annoyed with how the die rolls tend to fuck up the narrative with ludicrous deviations from the expected. I accept that chance has a significant outcome, and I'd never do away with dice (well, never say never, but it's not something I feel inclined to do), but I feel the character build should take priority. Breaking down doors is a pet peeve; I'm just not buying the superhumanly strong barbarian being unable to break down a flimsy wooden gate because of a natural one. (I realize repeated bashes could gradually wear down the door, but this isn't really what the game seems to model, and in either case it slows down the narrative significantly.)
Anyway, sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread with that rant.
When experimenting with this myself, I did notice that 1d6-1d6 fits well with skills going from 0-10. In the incredibly unlikely scenario that one player gets -5 and another gets +5 in an opposed check (0.07% if my math isn't off) a completely untrained individual with skill 0, rolling +5, will be barely capable of tieing with a master of skill 10, rolling -5, due to chance alone (assuming here that skill+roll is the resolution mechanic). But only for a moment.
I realize none of this may apply to Asura, it's been a while since I read your rules, but just thought I'd voice my own thoughts and epiphanies on the matter.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowWhen experimenting with this myself, I did notice that 1d6-1d6 fits well with skills going from 0-10. In the incredibly unlikely scenario that one player gets -5 and another gets +5 in an opposed check (0.07% if my math isn't off) a completely untrained individual with skill 0, rolling +5, will be barely capable of tieing with a master of skill 10, rolling -5, due to chance alone (assuming here that skill+roll is the resolution mechanic). But only for a moment.
I was going to post something snarky, but then I realized my original post was vague. :grin:
What wasn't clear was that Asura, like D&D, usually uses
unopposed checks. Your opposed (d6-d6) is essentially a (d6-d6)-(d6-d6), which is, of course, the same as an unopposed 2d6-2d6, which is what I'm using now. So I completely agree with your reasoning; we're actually advocating the same thing!
Quote from: Superfluous CrowBreaking down doors is a pet peeve; I'm just not buying the superhumanly strong barbarian being unable to break down a flimsy wooden gate because of a natural one.
I agree with you on this too, but I don't think that your choice of a random number generator is really the place to solve this problem. Rather, I think you should consider what failure really means (and should mean!) in your system. D&D and Pathfinder are kind of stuck with a very simple but rigid paradigm of "if you succeed at the roll, you succeed; if you fail, you fail."
On the other hand, Asura (inspired by FATE and a bunch of other "narrativist" stuff) is based around having interesting consequences for failure; a failure adds complications and challenge for the players but doesn't grind their story to a halt. If the strong barbarian tries to break down the flimsy wooden door, the door is coming down no matter what the barbarian rolls. However, if he rolls a failure while smashing the door, other thing can happen. Maybe he just breaks the lock or a hinge, causing him to succeed, but look a bit weak and stupid in the process. To allow some more punitive consequences, maybe a nail he didn't see embeds itself into his arm, causing him to be wounded. Or maybe the door breaks with such a terrible noise that every monster around suddenly takes notice. Of course, this kind of thing is based on GM creativity (and GM fiat, really) and harder to "hardcode" into the rules, so it doesn't suit all systems, but, I thought I'd share my own views, anyway.
Why is it that someone you'd describe as "superhumanly strong" would even need to roll anything to smash open a door described as "flimsy"?
Hah, I hadn't thought about it like that. Ah, math is lovely. But maybe I should have read a bit more into your system before posting :p
So you just add the difference of their skill levels as a modifier?
I must admit, I have always liked the opposed roll. It feels action-y. But on the other hand, I can understand the give-the-dice-to-the-players mentality.
I was exaggerating to make a point. But even normal doors are surprisingly tough to break down in D&D. (I know they are meant to keep things out, but it doesn't really fit with the tone of the game that knocking doors down is so incredibly tough)
And yes, I can fiat my way out of it. In many cases I will. But situations arise, especially when players expect some adherence to the rules/their rolls to have influence. Moving to another system would be an even better option, and I have honestly been wanting to play FATE for quite a while. But I'm playing with a bunch of (relatively) new players and a transition to FATE seems like a bit of a big step at the time, unfortunately.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowSo you just add the difference of their skill levels as a modifier?
Yes, basically. All rolls are (trait+skill) - difficulty + bonuses + dice, which is fairly standard. If you're opposing someone else, the difficulty is their own (trait+skill), otherwise it's a static score the GM determines, like a D&D DC.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowI have honestly been wanting to play FATE for quite a while. But I'm playing with a bunch of (relatively) new players and a transition to FATE seems like a bit of a big step at the time, unfortunately.
Yes. I can relate. Recently I've been teaching the Asura system to someone who is only familiar with D&D and Pathfinder. So, not only does he have to learn the details of the system itself (which aren't too hard) but the whole "FATE-like" gaming mentality, which is quite different.
I feel like the best transition to something like FATE would be when the players start questioning the limitations of e.g. Pathfinder and start to want more.