The new Marvel Super Hero game really put me off with its dice mechanics. It seems to me that every new system tries some new dice mechanic. I certainly appreciate trying new things. Change is good. But none of these new mechanics seem to add much except complication.
I have often thought of having a go at creating my own system. Until recently, I was convinced I would go with a percentage based system. Two dice, roll under…most everyone easily recognizes what their chances of success are instantly, lots of room for granularity. The only problem I foresee with percentage based is that beyond super human (100%) capabilities could be problematic. If someone is 10x stronger than a human, do you really want 1000s in a stat box?
Now you could do something hybrid, like everything above 100% goes into a special category and do Shift N, where Shift 1 is 5x as 100 and Shift 2 is 10x 1000, but there is that added complication again. And does anyone really want to roll under 10,000%?
More recently, I have been thinking that 2d6 is a nice sweet spot for mechanics. Most people can easily add 2d6, there is a bit of a bell curve so 2 and 12 do not show up as often. The cons, as I see it, is there is only so much granularity between 2 and 12. I have not even given thought to abilities beyond human. Would you add dice or just add bonuses where you are guaranteed a result between 12 and 24?
Enough rambling for a Friday morning. What are my fellow Paizoans' feelings on dice mechanics? What is your favorite and why? What is your least favorite and why? If you were to design your own game, what mechanic would you choose and why? Is there a place for loaded dice? The d12, anti-christ or misunderstood polyhedron?
We (our group) tinkered for YEARS with the creation of our own dice mechanic as well. Then the d20 system showed up around the time D&D 3rd Edition appeared; Which wasn't all that dissimilar than what we came up with. So that nailed it (for me anyways). Then I upgraded with 3.5 because we found the updates to the system were relevant.
Then, Pathfinder and 4th Edition arrived. On one hand, we had Pathfinder, witch was derived from 3.5 but with more tweaks that made it better, and was still compatible with the 3.5 books. And on the other hand there was 4th Edition, which I thought was a totaly unneeded bogus pseudo-system developped souly for the purpose of Hasbro wanting to own their own game.
So Pathfinder it was. Still going strong. It's the system that works very well for me and my group, and I don't think we'll ever change from it. It's a well made, well though up system, made by folks who eat, drink and sleep roleplaying.
Everything else is Bantha Pudu.
lol!
Ultradan
|
I was actually just thinking about this myself.
If you think about a system abstractly, here a some factors to consider:
1. What does the roll determine? On a roll, are you just trying to meet a certain criteria for success or failure, or does the roll instead reflect the degree of success or failure in a more granular fashion?
For example, in the d20 system, an attack roll is a simple hit/miss proposition (ignoring criticals for simplicity's sake). You either meet the AC and hit, or you fall short and you miss. It's binary, 1 or 0.
On the other hand, a damage roll is a granular measurement of the degree of success. You want to roll a high as possible, not just to beat a set threshold but to maximize your results overall.
There's a big difference between these two different types of mechanics, both in the way they're affected by statistical modifiers and in the way they're perceived by players. It's a very important thing to keep in mind when designing a system.
2. Mechanically, a character sheet is a collection of numbers that describe how to modify dice rolls in particular situations. So the question when designing a dice mechanics system is, in what way (or ways) will the character sheet affect the dice rolls?
For example, with the d20 System, a +1 on a roll generally represents a cumulative +5% chance of success on the binary success/failure rolls. For rolls to be meaningful, there has to be a chance of success somewhere between 5% and 95%, otherwise why roll? The system is therefore designed so that when characters are facing a challenge appropriate to their level, the bonuses to their rolls will be between 1 and 20 points lower than the DCs for success. No matter how high the bonuses and DCs are in nominal terms, there will still be only 20 points of swing between a hard task and an easy task, and conversely 20 points of swing between a character being good at something and bad at something.
This is due to the use of a single d20 for the roll. Using a different die type and number for a roll will change this degree of swing accordingly. With d% rolls, there's much more granularity possible. There's room for smaller differences in modifiers that have finer effects on the probability of success. This could be helpful for a system designer, or it could be more nitpicky than the players like. It depends on the design goals.
Modifying granular "degree of success" rolls is a whole different ballgame. But modifiers here scale based on the type of dice rolled as well.
For example, having a +1 to damage rolls can be very important or mostly irrelevant based on the dice formula. If it's d4+1, then the +1 is pretty great. If it's 10d6+1, who cares about that +1?
That's just some basic stuff that I was thinking about on the drive to work this morning. There's a whole lot more that a professional game designer could tell you, I'm sure!
And on the other hand there was 4th Edition, which I thought was a totaly unneeded bogus pseudo-system developped souly for the purpose of Hasbro wanting to own their own game.
It is hard to take you serious when you pick up this tired, old standard.
If you think about a system abstractly, here a some factors to consider:
Excellent point. I have often preferred systems that include degree of success. I like a single die roll instead of two or more. How well you hit something should have an impact on how much you hurt them.
This could quickly get complicated though. Suppose using a d%, that for every full 10 you roll over you add one to the weapons damage. Now you have to have people doing division and we know how much gamers loathe math. :)
And on the other hand there was 4th Edition, which I thought was a totaly unneeded bogus pseudo-system developped souly for the purpose of Hasbro wanting to own their own game.It is hard to take you serious when you pick up this tired, old standard.
I was just stating that it was the advent of 4th Edition that nailed the coffin for D&D (for our group). We truly believed that the d20 D&D rules were great (always with room for improvement). I bought almost every book up to that point, and I would probably still be buying Wizard of the Coast products if they hadn't completely changed format.
And soon, a FIFTH edition, I'm hearing? Ugh...
Long live Pathfinder!! Yay!!
Ultradan
|
|
Excellent point. I have often preferred systems that include degree of success. I like a single die roll instead of two or more. How well you hit something should have an impact on how much you hurt them.
This could quickly get complicated though. Suppose using a d%, that for every full 10 you roll over you add one to the weapons damage. Now you have to have people doing division and we know how much gamers loathe math. :)
Yes, I think there's a pretty good reason that the d20 designers decided to keep the roll-to-hit and the damage roll separate from each other. When you combine them like that, you also get other consequences, like the fact that someone who can just barely hit something still can't do much damage even when they get lucky, so there's not much point.
I think the absolute most important thing to consider is how the *players* will perceive the mechanic. This is subjective and psychological.
For example, some people feel way more powerful when they get to roll a whole bunch of little dice rather than one big one. Others hate having to add up a bunch of numbers, and would rather just read one number off a single die.
Some people really *hate* the feeling of succeeding on a first roll only to then roll very low on a second follow-up roll and cancel out their success, and would rather resolve everything with a single roll. Other people *love* the tension of several successive rolls where each one depends on the others and they add up to a final decision.
It depends a lot on what your players like. Do they generally feel that rolling dice is inherently fun, or do they see it as just a necessary chore that should be minimized?