The Campaign Builder's Guild

Whoa.

I'm back, everyone!

Wait... actually thought over the rolling low bit. It might make sense. Roll under your ability score (in this case between five and nine) with number of successes determined by the task... Hmm...

I'm still wierded out by roll-under systems. What do the rest of you think?

Roll at or under is the way, especially if one goes with percentile rolls.

except that we decided on dicepools something like a page ago. But roll under with dciepools: good? bad?

Mechanically, roll over and roll under are identical. Conceptually, it may make a difference in how people look at things.

Not much to choose on, other than people's gut feel about it. I'm pretty ambivalent myself.

I'm proposing a slightly more radical change.
Abilities between 2 and 5.
6d6 dicepools.
Roll under ability.
Number of successes determined by difficulty.
Number of successes to hit equals defensive ability.
Crits on 666.

Last part is just 'cause, but besides that, I think it simplifies things a little. I mean, the game... it's a shitload more work for us (and especially you snake... sorry).

Quote from: beejazzI'm proposing a slightly more radical change.
Abilities between 2 and 5.
6d6 dicepools.
Roll under ability.
Number of successes determined by difficulty.
Number of successes to hit equals defensive ability.
Crits on 666.

An ability range of 4? That does not make for much variation in characters.

Quote from: CYMRO

Quote from: beejazzI'm proposing a slightly more radical change.
Abilities between 2 and 5.
6d6 dicepools.
Roll under ability.
Number of successes determined by difficulty.
Number of successes to hit equals defensive ability.
Crits on 666.

An ability range of 4? That does not make for much variation in characters.

For five ability scores? Then taking into account skill ranks?
In DnD you've got six, maybe seven possible modifiers. I don't much see what's wrong with fewer. In any case, the more ability scores vary, the bigger the dice and the bigger the pools. A pool at six (and going as high as nine or ten) is a shitload less clunky than alot of dicepool systems I've read about (been doin' some research). And back to d6s? Which everyone has? You gotta admit that's a good thing.

Smaller pools with less addition means easier play.
And there are still four ability scores, four levels of skill(base, +1 die, +2 die, +3 die... maybe more in a supers game) and six difficulties.
We've still got 100+ possible checks.

Again... if we do go thataway, sorry snakefing. ;)

QuoteIn DnD you've got six, maybe seven possible modifiers.

Since when?
PHB, page 8, an ability score of 1 has a -5 mod.  The table in question has twenty-three possible modifiers, with no actual upper limit.

QuoteIn any case, the more ability scores vary, the bigger the dice and the bigger the pools.

Thus, an inherent flaw with the dice pool.
How many people really want this sort of bookkeeping in their game?

Quote from: CYMRO

QuoteIn DnD you've got six, maybe seven possible modifiers.

Since when?
PHB, page 8, an ability score of 1 has a -5 mod.  The table in question has twenty-three possible modifiers, with no actual upper limit.

QuoteIn any case, the more ability scores vary, the bigger the dice and the bigger the pools.

Thus, an inherent flaw with the dice pool.
How many people really want this sort of bookkeeping in their game?


[/quote]
uh... except that that wouldn't come into play. I mean that if we want to vary more, we'd have to use bigger dice*. And if we want to use bigger dice, we'd have to use more dice**.

So no. No problem. This is the design level, not the play level.

*Rolling at or under 1 means you'd fail ALOT. Can't imagine who'd want to do that. Rolling at or under 6 is 100% chance of success. Broken anyone? Hence 2-5. If we used d8s, it would be 2-7. If we used d10s it would be 2-9. If we used d12s it would be 2-11. And so forth.

**Technically, this is only if we want to use my idea where number of successes to hit is determined by the value of the opposed ability (no adding. Just x=y.) So if we decided on d8 pools it would be 8d8. If we decided on d10 pools, it would be 10d10. If we decided on 12, it would be 12d12. And so forth. Also, note that someone with ability score 2 succeeds two out of six times on average. Or that someone with score 3 succeeds three out of six times on average. See how easy that is to calculate? Hell, I can do that. We might still need snake on the progressive dice, but this shit is EASY.

QuoteThis is the design level, not the play level.

You have to think play level when you design.  

It should all be about playability and ease of use.
Would a new group of players choose this Byzantine system?
The more you post about the dice pools, the less I see the playability.

Ack! There's nothing unplayable about them!
I roll 6d6. I succeed x times. Did I succeed?

SIMPLE. No adding bonuses. No subtracting penalties. Just roll and count. It's all there.

It only sounds confusing because we have to design it. But even that's a shitload easier... so easy even I can do it.

"His ability is 5. He succeeds 5 for six. He will average five successes."
"But what happens when we add a die?"
"He succeeds 5 and 5/6 times on average."

Even I can calculate that.

And there are more shades of gray than with d20. We have 16 degrees of competence. Their ability scores may be between 3 and 18, but the modifiers are only between -4 and +4 (for a total of 9).

So it's easy to write. It's easy to play. It retains its granularity.

Quote from: beejazzAck! There's nothing unplayable about them!
I roll 6d6. I succeed x times. Did I succeed?

SIMPLE. No adding bonuses. No subtracting penalties. Just roll and count. It's all there.

It only sounds confusing because we have to design it. But even that's a shitload easier... so easy even I can do it.

"His ability is 5. He succeeds 5 for six. He will average five successes."
"But what happens when we add a die?"
"He succeeds 5 and 5/6 times on average."

Even I can calculate that.



So it's easy to write. It's easy to play. It retains its granularity.

Percentile dice are better.  No pools, just a straight percentile chance to succeed.
In the past month I have run both, as well as d20, past casual gamers.  Not hardcore math geek gamers, but average casual gamers.  The bulk of gamers.  

Meh... percentile dice are still roll-under. And until I see how exactly you mean to use them, I can't honestly say it'd be any simpler. Also, with dice pools there's a bit of a bell curve... with the center around the same as your ability score. I like that. Again, less work for me.

Seriously. For example, a jump mechanic would be easy with 6d6: You get the one square forward. Each sqaure after needs two successes.

So most people jump 10 feet. At ability 4 you average 15. Rough max of 20.

It's simple. It's damn near real (okay... more like DnD real: start with avg and progress.) It works.

Combat? Hell, 3str vs 3ref hits 50% of the time. The way it should be.

Hell, I could practically write this shit all by myself. Which feels more and more the case as this goes on, with the notable exception of Snake (and I feel almost guilty for relying on him so much, what with how busy he is).

Quote from: beejazzMeh... percentile dice are still roll-under. And until I see how exactly you mean to use them, I can't honestly say it'd be any simpler. Also, with dice pools there's a bit of a bell curve... with the center around the same as your ability score. I like that. Again, less work for me.

Seriously. For example, a jump mechanic would be easy with 6d6: You get the one square forward. Each sqaure after needs two successes.

So most people jump 10 feet. At ability 4 you average 15. Rough max of 20.

It's simple. It's damn near real (okay... more like DnD real: start with avg and progress.) It works.

Combat? Hell, 3str vs 3ref hits 50% of the time. The way it should be.

"Bell curves suck, man." --Evolution

QuoteCombat? Hell, 3str vs 3ref hits 50% of the time. The way it should be.

The way it should be?  No, especially as strength should not be the determining factor for how well you aim...
What about non-proficiencies?

 I will post in my proposal thread some % mechanics.  

QuoteHell, I could practically write this shit all by myself. Which feels more and more the case as this goes on, with the notable exception of Snake (and I feel almost guilty for relying on him so much, what with how busy he is).

You probably could, but does that make it a good system?  In the end, does it ease the mechanical burden and allow players to play rather than get frustrated.
My casual sampling on the subject leads me away from dice pools.