Actually, this where having a lot of non-D20 experience helps out. helps out. Shadowrun had dice pools which you could allocate as you see fit for multiple tasks per phase. Storyteller was very big on quality of successes based on individual dice targets.
I find this idea extremely refreshing and intriguing and would definitely try out such a game.
Actually, this where having a lot of non-D20 helps out. Shadowrun had dice pools which you could allocate as you see fit for multiple tasks per phase. Storyteller was very big on quality of successes based on individual dice targets.
I find this idea extremely refreshing and intriguing and would definitely try out such a game.
Hey there. So...yeah, I'm about a year late to the party, and I just wanted to ask a hypothetical question: What the hell is the poor 12 Dex 1st-level Wizard going to do when he runs out of spells? The D2was his "hail Mary," allowing him to at least make potshots with a crossbow, but now we've taken even that away from him. Your response?
However, it is my own experience, that in any game involving the slightest hint of intrigue (which is 70% of mine - I'm a hard core Birthright-fan), giving players the ability to design the results of their actions will spell frustration in the group that works besides each other, yet not together.
Besides the obvious use of the wager-pool (-1 die = +something damage), had you considered some "set" terms for what a "critical" success (ie. picking a lock with 5 dice in the wager pool) might do?
So, yes - I like the concept of changing each +1 to +1d6 in an effort to remove some of the randomness that the d20 provides. For far too long has heroic characters failed in the most anticlimactic of moments, only to die in a ditch, skewered by Average Joe Farmer's pitchfork (trust me - it happens more often than you'd believe).
I also like the wager-system you suggest with any excess die - up to a point. In a low-level campaign this would probably work flawlessly.
I realize I'm showing up really late for this party. But here's my reactions: 1) Simpler to ditch the d20 system entirely for something better, no? 2) You're absolutely right about the d20 being too random. I'm struggling with this right now in my attempt to write the 3rd edition of V&V. 3) I'm not a big fan of dice pools, but I agree with you that allowing players to risk failure in exchange for better results if they succeed is a good thing. Interesting talk, thanks!
@jeffdee Hey! It's Jeff Dee! Awesome. Welcome aboard, sir.
(Fanboy moment: you're my favorite 1st ed. artist and V&V is awesome.)
As for why am I trying to change the d20 system rather than ditch it and do something else: well, I've done that a few times. It's a kind of challenge for me. "What could I change about the d20 system without changing the character sheet?" So far, it's been fun.
it... for a while. Now, this could just as easily be construed as the DM screwing with you. Also, it doesn't really fix "The Whiff Factor", because the player is still screwing up something that should be basic to them. Just in a new way. Perhaps a house rule on it, something like, "If your skill bonus equals 1/2 the DC, you can not epically fumble" or insert gamer preference here. Ok, well, that was much longer than expected, and youtube's trying to verify my humanity. Hope I didn't bore you.
is something amiss? Now later on, the players need to escape, and they're running back the way they came. The DM then could a) spring the trap and further complicate matters, or b) use that same trap to save the players. The argument, if you could call it that, is not so much in the function, but how it's used. If a person has +15 Disable Device, the reason better be pretty good for why they failed. In this case, maybe they failed to notice a shoddy trap component, but their own skill overcame
extremes because a DM could set something up for later. Just as the player could control whether they succeed or fail and how well in the wager/dice pool system, the DM could set up a few tricks. For instance, say you're a skilled thief and you're disarming a trap. You roll a 1 and fumble. Now, most DM's would just let the trap go off, but what if instead, the DM said, "Alright, seems like you got it"? Now the player's confused; he knows he failed, so he has to wonder, is the DM feeling nice, or
do. See, rambly as ever. My point is, you need to really know your players for this to work. And if you have a mismatched group, you'll have those who take to it well, and those who will kill the mood.
My second argument, not really an argument, more a thought. I like the bell curve; it favors players by making criticals more rare, and therefore more meaningful when they occur, and it makes characters specifically designed for certain tasks very competent in them. However, I like the idea of the
Unfortunately, then you'd have uninvolved players, who actually fear that option. I remember that same DM describing this Cathedral of Death, and asking a fellow player what he saw. His reply, though classic, scared me more than what I was thinking: "I see lots of happy, pink bunnies all over the walls." Now, I'll admit, that's kind of interesting, but this was the type of DM who could take anything and get you with it. At least I knew what I was expecting. I had no idea what the bunnies could
players. In my experience there are involved, uninvolved, and midway players, and we tend to switch roles often. An involved player and a midway player would think it's brilliant. The involved player would think, "This is a great way to shape the character." A midway player, which I tend to be honestly, would think, "That's kind of cool. And I could set up things for later." That min-maxer half of me would realize the GM just let him borrow the hand of God for 5 seconds, just long enough to rig
Wow... how to comment without wasting words or posting more than one comment. Forget it. Lets see how this goes. First off, love the idea, and I'd try it. Second, here are my really slimmed down arguments. One, had a GM who tried experimenting with this. He'd start describing stuff or we'd have to make a roll for a Knowledge check and he'd ask, "And what do you see?" or "Name 5 things you know about this?" Now, unfortunately, and you are probably well aware, this may or may not take with certain
There are parts of this that are absolutely amazing in my opinion, and others I'm not so hot on. Bell curve vs flat distribution comes down to mere preference, and I like different things in different games. As for the wagering system, and the concept of gambling on crits, that is a very neat system. I'm already starting to take the core of this and convert it into the game I'm currently designing. May or may not be bell curve, but I definitely want rolls to matter more than Y/N.
That would be a great idea, if you hadn't already used it for Houses of the Blooded... unless you're building up to showing off that RPG as the culmination of all of these d20 tweaks, which would be a horrendously awesome marketing technique for those D&Ders who don't know what Houses of the Blooded is (and judging from the comments most of them don't).
@itsatrapitsalways , there's nothing wrong with it, I was just pointing out that Mr.Wick has already used this system before under the name "Houses of the Blooded." So its not really D&D, its "Houses of the Blooded" if all you have is a D&D character sheet.
Pretty interesing ideas. The first part I kinda like. Though I would prefer to have some alternative crit system in place for low level characters. The second part would be absolutely awesome if you had a good group. What kind of bonuses did you have in mind per gambled die by the way.
I always thought the chance of a roll means more than just the pc's ability. There are all sorts of variables in the environment etc. I would be really disappointed if mechanics are designed based on character ability only. I would hate to play in a game where the DM or players can call the success/failures. I say give me my five percent chance.
Anyway good idea looking into the dice mechanics, You got me thinking...
I don't really care if the mechanics are changed at all. I do dislike the D20 roll but the bell curve doesn't mean much to me because I really prefer story driven games. you have given me what I want though- more chances to have a character driven story and it is now much less about the DM vs. the players and more about how the group and the individual characters create a shared story experience. I like having more say in both the story and the possible outcome of smaller events within the plot
4E: Remove 1/2 level bonus, set DC to 25, 3d6 base roll. Now you can use penalties!
On the whole, however, it should be able to translate pretty decently to D&D. The big question, of course, would be: Do you tell the players the DCs up front? Say a goblin has AC 14, Fort 12, Ref 15, Will 11. I'd be inclined to keep that information from the PCs, since I keep it from them in normal D&D. Not knowing precisely how much oomph you need to put into your blows sounds like a pretty fun time...
If you tweak all D20 rules into something more roleplayable (not only this few examples), that could be a best seller.
The most known and loved characheters and environment without those horribly restrictive, computer-oriented rules? That could make me go back to my DND books and games after having sweared not to even look at them for the rest of my life.
@adalpo Changing the dice probabilities to a bell curve will not have any impact on the inherent restrictiveness of the system itself. It's the classes and the formulaic spells that tie you down in the end.
Don't know, man. I mean, it's just easier and far more simple to change the 1d20 for 2d10. It both gives a sinple bell curve and allows the group to keep all the pluses and minuses in place, without having to calculate for anything. Also, it takes into account the situations in which a character ends up with a negative modifier. Yeah, I love d10 systems, but I think it would make sense in this "rules conversion".
The overall range of numbers is more important than a half-point of average outcome, especially the upper range. Critical-based builds are already messed up enough by the very notion of a bell curve.
@insurgii Yeah, but the average isn't the whole story. Let's see highest roll chances: 1d20 = 1:20 (5%) 2d10 = 1:100 (1%) 3d6 = 1:216 (0.46%, and max is 18, not 20) Also, let's check lowest: 1d20 = 1:20 (5%) 2d10 = 1:100 (1%, and lowest is 2, not 1) 3d6 = 1:216 (0.46%, and max is 3, not 1) Even more, the curves for numbers in 3dice tend more to the average than in 2dice. Bun in any way, what option one takes depends on the tastes of the group and what do the GM/DM/whatever wants for randomness.
I can see what you are saying about the d20 but something about it still appeals to me. Especially when you've played old d&d and realize the d20 is better than what came before. I also agree w the thought the system is what it is- with all the systems out there if you don't like d20, just play in a different system. I love having all the different systems. It gives each game it's own feel. My fav system SLA industries uses 2d10. And I also love Amber- diceless roleplaying. I think each system
I'll set some dice apart for the princesses lock. ;-)
According to your system you'll not fail the roll of the dice if you have an equal amount of dice as the target number. If not you're still able to fail the roll.
what do you do if you're attempting to use a skill or stat that you have a negative modifier in? example: my Dex is only 9 giving me a dice pool of -1D6 and I need to climb this rope. what do I roll?
I have what I consider to be a decent gaming group, and I would try this. The one issue that I think I would have would be THEIR comfort in narrating what happens. They would be so uncertain of what they could do, I think they would err on the side of, "So, I did it. What happens?" Any thoughts or advice on prepping them?
Much love for this notion and all the others.... Ill be sure to try it as soon as i can and let you know how it goes. One thing: The concept of the Vorpal sword has always pissed me off, you have a big bad that the players have fought long and hard just to get to and in the first round of the final fight one of the players rolls a nat 20 on a vorpal sword. Okay fight over, lets go home. With this system the vorpal sword can instead say: Each die wagered counts twice. Lots more damage!
This sounds very interesting, but i'm afraid that at higher levels (or even mid-levels) this can make for a very screwy game. Any kind of specialised character at higher level (maxed ranks, good linked atribute, skill focus, masterwork tools) would have incredibly high dice-pools, to the point where they could roll dice equal to half the dificulty and still have 5 or 6 wagers on the side.
The odds of such a character failing at any given task is incredibly low.
I find your approach very valid, and will try it out.
But also, I'd like to give another point of view: is there something great about dice (or luck) in (rpg) games?
Definitely, because even those less capable players (in creativity, logic, larp actions, convincing) can succeed. I remember you once mentioned a player asking (was it in larp): "why do you punish me for being not atheltic?" or something like that. My counter question is: why punish a player for being not as smart or persuasive?
... such as in non contest style such as rock climbing and such you have to accually completely change the mechanics of the game impossiable challanges become merely inconvenient.
Like I said the mechanics will always cause problems but in this case the GM must do more work which the players may simply see as railroading or box cannon.
Additionally some charaters at lower levels become high incompetent.
Well, if you were doing a conversion from 4e, as long as you have positive stats, you wouldn't have any problem, because there are tons of +s to be found...proficiency in weapons (+2 or +3 generally) and tons of things make you better at skills (foot pads for stealth, rope for climbing).
I think starting with 3d6 before modifiers adding dice for much of the DnD world such as low level combat, is a good start. Then having a -2 modifier can still gain a success of a simple task (target# of 5) but you would have to be competent without negative modifiers to be able choose success or failure for something in the DC 15 range.
Consider "Rolling 6s": if all your dice (possibly 1) are all 6s roll another die. There is your very exciting Crit Vegas moment. 1 die and need a 15? 6, 6, 3
This method does a good job of fixing those odd instances where a dice roll can end a game: "Do you dive out of the giant stone door before it seals you all in for good?"
In vanilla the GM would just have to fudge like a crazy man, simply making his players roll to create a false sense of drama. In the d6 version you have the option of just messing with them a bit "Oh no! It crushed your foot!". Huge potential for fun fuckery, plus they know they really do stand to lose something.
@LordStrange The rules are indeed weak, to the point that they even mention the need to fudge in the rule books. However, back to your point, not rolling (in this case) is just as bad as rolling. In both instances you're missing out on a potentially exciting moment, striping the players of any agency, and being rather lame, all because DnD's very binary logic can't accommodate it.
Ran this through the d20 combat sim spreadsheet, but with the dice pool idea v d20. There is a small bit of breakage, but nothing worth worrying about. So long as the character has a positive stat, there's no problem. Given the average build values placing each stat at +1, this isn't an issue. Using the 4e +5 for training means that a trained stat will be at least 6d6 - which means that on the std d20 DC scale, they'd easily average a roll of 20. Which isn't shabby for a 1st level character...
@ekb65536 Scale would definately be a problems for skills. And making it work in 3.5 is joke. I know my 3rd level Bard had a Diplomacy skill of about +16 on average
But many other similar systems would actually work well. I thought about incorporating this into Ars Magica, and I have already done similar with Mutants and Masterminds.
I actually did something exactly like this for a Mutants and Masterminds game that I ran. It worked out great and I loved it. However, not all of the players felt the same way. One play that it was great idea and really enjoyed it. One did not understand it at all and just kept roll a d20, even though we told him he would never need it. And one absolutely hated the idea because "You changed the rules!" The last player did not care so much for because it meant he would have to come up with stuff
Your mechanic heavily distorts game balance. Low and negative bonuses now have no chance to succeed at average rolls - for instance, the success rate for a +1 roll at DCs of 5, 10 and 15 goes from 80%, 60% and 30% to ~16%, 0 and 0 - while increases to already high bonuses yield increasingly disproportionate returns. Just thinking about Epic magic in this system gives me a headache.
If you want a bell curve, roll 2d10. It's almost the same range of numbers, and it still accommodates most builds.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Do you mean the success rate for someone who has only a +1 bonus? No other bonuses? Ask yourself why any character with only a +1 in *anything* should be trying that risk.
@LordStrange Sometimes you have no choice but to try. The beauty is that if the job is beyond your skill level it isn't the end of the world it just is in the hands of the GM.
@GameLogician Ah, but if you insert game mechanics that allow for heroic actions then you don't have to rely on dice rolls! (See "Part 2" tomorrow!) ;)
Every game I've ever been in has invariably involved at least one character being forced into a situation outside of his area of expertise at some point. An untrained skill check is likely to fall between -2 and +2, as is a bad save bonus. Spellcasters forced to defend themselves in close combat also come to mind, especially at low levels.
The problem also manifests at the other end of the spectrum, where the discrepency increases exponentially with increasing bonuses.
E.g. the rate of success for +10 against DC 25 is roughly doubled, and +15 beats DC 50 more than half of the time. Which is what prompted my comment about Epic magic.
I'm not opposed to your paradigm, but I think you're inserting it somewhere it doesn't belong. At this point, if you really want to "fix" DnD, I really think you're better off just running it diceless.
@LordStrange You asked why anybody with a +1 should be trying a risk. I told you why somebody with a +0 would be trying a risk.
And failure is only interesting in gaming when players want their characters to fail (or at least don't care either way). Else it is a fun killer. You've actually stated the case for this in your thoughts on "whiff factor".
@PanzerDivisionBOM Also, by changing not hitting the TN from "fail" to "the DM says how your character succeeds or fails," you change the entire paradigm of the game. Failure isn't the only option; the character can *fail forward* in such a way that the game doesn't stop but it creates further complications.
I think I might try this, if nothing else for a short adventure just to see how it works. I like the idea that a good character gets to be good at, you know, whatever their particular bailiwick is. In a D&D setting (or d20 anything, really) would you still rely on the Houses Injuries and Scars system, since the action du jour is kill it with fire?
I like the HoB mechanics, especially Wagers. Kickass idea! Mechanically though, converting D20 bonuses into D6s would break rather quick would be my guess (havnt played nor tested it so cant say for certain). But for what´s its worth, I find your HoB mechanics better dramatical tools than the D20 mechanics;)
@Nejira I thought about that. One of the other things I don't like about the d20 system is the lack of weapon skills. I think I'd add weapon skills as well.
This is pretty neat. But I'm curious about negative stats (I think less dice for sucking fine), and also LOW stats.
Lets say a goblin has AC 15. That means a first level thief with a 14 strength (burly thief) including would roll 2 dice to attack a the goblin (he could perhaps get more by flanking, so 4 dice). But the fact is they'd have a near impossible chances to hit anything.
I think this would be awesome! BUT all difficulty numbers would need to be reduced or changed to a flat number.
I think this salvages the heroic adventure story of games like D&D, but also allows for the subtleties and nuances in less heroic stories that might be told by d20 modern or other "more real" settings.
This is a great idea, but monsters will have to have a lot more hp to survive and make it a challenge.
Antiks72 1 month ago
Actually, this where having a lot of non-D20 experience helps out. helps out. Shadowrun had dice pools which you could allocate as you see fit for multiple tasks per phase. Storyteller was very big on quality of successes based on individual dice targets.
I find this idea extremely refreshing and intriguing and would definitely try out such a game.
fmlazar 5 months ago
Actually, this where having a lot of non-D20 helps out. Shadowrun had dice pools which you could allocate as you see fit for multiple tasks per phase. Storyteller was very big on quality of successes based on individual dice targets.
I find this idea extremely refreshing and intriguing and would definitely try out such a game.
fmlazar 5 months ago
Hey there. So...yeah, I'm about a year late to the party, and I just wanted to ask a hypothetical question: What the hell is the poor 12 Dex 1st-level Wizard going to do when he runs out of spells? The D2was his "hail Mary," allowing him to at least make potshots with a crossbow, but now we've taken even that away from him. Your response?
LeMayJoseph 5 months ago
However, it is my own experience, that in any game involving the slightest hint of intrigue (which is 70% of mine - I'm a hard core Birthright-fan), giving players the ability to design the results of their actions will spell frustration in the group that works besides each other, yet not together.
Besides the obvious use of the wager-pool (-1 die = +something damage), had you considered some "set" terms for what a "critical" success (ie. picking a lock with 5 dice in the wager pool) might do?
RobertKanin 8 months ago
So, yes - I like the concept of changing each +1 to +1d6 in an effort to remove some of the randomness that the d20 provides. For far too long has heroic characters failed in the most anticlimactic of moments, only to die in a ditch, skewered by Average Joe Farmer's pitchfork (trust me - it happens more often than you'd believe).
I also like the wager-system you suggest with any excess die - up to a point. In a low-level campaign this would probably work flawlessly.
RobertKanin 8 months ago
Comment removed
LordSathar 10 months ago
@LordSathar Because if it was a system I loved (like Pendragon), I wouldn't need to fix it. ;)
LordStrange 10 months ago
I realize I'm showing up really late for this party. But here's my reactions: 1) Simpler to ditch the d20 system entirely for something better, no? 2) You're absolutely right about the d20 being too random. I'm struggling with this right now in my attempt to write the 3rd edition of V&V. 3) I'm not a big fan of dice pools, but I agree with you that allowing players to risk failure in exchange for better results if they succeed is a good thing. Interesting talk, thanks!
jeffdee 10 months ago
@jeffdee Hey! It's Jeff Dee! Awesome. Welcome aboard, sir.
(Fanboy moment: you're my favorite 1st ed. artist and V&V is awesome.)
As for why am I trying to change the d20 system rather than ditch it and do something else: well, I've done that a few times. It's a kind of challenge for me. "What could I change about the d20 system without changing the character sheet?" So far, it's been fun.
LordStrange 10 months ago
@LordStrange Thanks, man. And hey, I totally understand taking a stab at 'fixing' DnD as an experiment. I've done it myself :)
jeffdee 10 months ago
it... for a while. Now, this could just as easily be construed as the DM screwing with you. Also, it doesn't really fix "The Whiff Factor", because the player is still screwing up something that should be basic to them. Just in a new way. Perhaps a house rule on it, something like, "If your skill bonus equals 1/2 the DC, you can not epically fumble" or insert gamer preference here. Ok, well, that was much longer than expected, and youtube's trying to verify my humanity. Hope I didn't bore you.
Propadanza 1 year ago
is something amiss? Now later on, the players need to escape, and they're running back the way they came. The DM then could a) spring the trap and further complicate matters, or b) use that same trap to save the players. The argument, if you could call it that, is not so much in the function, but how it's used. If a person has +15 Disable Device, the reason better be pretty good for why they failed. In this case, maybe they failed to notice a shoddy trap component, but their own skill overcame
Propadanza 1 year ago
extremes because a DM could set something up for later. Just as the player could control whether they succeed or fail and how well in the wager/dice pool system, the DM could set up a few tricks. For instance, say you're a skilled thief and you're disarming a trap. You roll a 1 and fumble. Now, most DM's would just let the trap go off, but what if instead, the DM said, "Alright, seems like you got it"? Now the player's confused; he knows he failed, so he has to wonder, is the DM feeling nice, or
Propadanza 1 year ago
do. See, rambly as ever. My point is, you need to really know your players for this to work. And if you have a mismatched group, you'll have those who take to it well, and those who will kill the mood.
My second argument, not really an argument, more a thought. I like the bell curve; it favors players by making criticals more rare, and therefore more meaningful when they occur, and it makes characters specifically designed for certain tasks very competent in them. However, I like the idea of the
Propadanza 1 year ago
Unfortunately, then you'd have uninvolved players, who actually fear that option. I remember that same DM describing this Cathedral of Death, and asking a fellow player what he saw. His reply, though classic, scared me more than what I was thinking: "I see lots of happy, pink bunnies all over the walls." Now, I'll admit, that's kind of interesting, but this was the type of DM who could take anything and get you with it. At least I knew what I was expecting. I had no idea what the bunnies could
Propadanza 1 year ago
players. In my experience there are involved, uninvolved, and midway players, and we tend to switch roles often. An involved player and a midway player would think it's brilliant. The involved player would think, "This is a great way to shape the character." A midway player, which I tend to be honestly, would think, "That's kind of cool. And I could set up things for later." That min-maxer half of me would realize the GM just let him borrow the hand of God for 5 seconds, just long enough to rig
Propadanza 1 year ago
Wow... how to comment without wasting words or posting more than one comment. Forget it. Lets see how this goes. First off, love the idea, and I'd try it. Second, here are my really slimmed down arguments. One, had a GM who tried experimenting with this. He'd start describing stuff or we'd have to make a roll for a Knowledge check and he'd ask, "And what do you see?" or "Name 5 things you know about this?" Now, unfortunately, and you are probably well aware, this may or may not take with certain
Propadanza 1 year ago
I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I really appreciate this post. Great ideas! It made for an interesting discussion.
Thanks!
gameraspinning 1 year ago
Comment removed
lighttigersoul 1 year ago
There are parts of this that are absolutely amazing in my opinion, and others I'm not so hot on. Bell curve vs flat distribution comes down to mere preference, and I like different things in different games. As for the wagering system, and the concept of gambling on crits, that is a very neat system. I'm already starting to take the core of this and convert it into the game I'm currently designing. May or may not be bell curve, but I definitely want rolls to matter more than Y/N.
lighttigersoul 1 year ago
@lighttigersoul Awesome! I'm glad I helped. :)
LordStrange 1 year ago
That would be a great idea, if you hadn't already used it for Houses of the Blooded... unless you're building up to showing off that RPG as the culmination of all of these d20 tweaks, which would be a horrendously awesome marketing technique for those D&Ders who don't know what Houses of the Blooded is (and judging from the comments most of them don't).
eldritchwizard 1 year ago
@eldritchwizard , whats wrong with stealing from another system to modify D and D?
itsatrapitsalways 1 year ago
@itsatrapitsalways , there's nothing wrong with it, I was just pointing out that Mr.Wick has already used this system before under the name "Houses of the Blooded." So its not really D&D, its "Houses of the Blooded" if all you have is a D&D character sheet.
eldritchwizard 1 year ago
Much better system in my opinion.
Antiks72 1 year ago
Pretty interesing ideas. The first part I kinda like. Though I would prefer to have some alternative crit system in place for low level characters. The second part would be absolutely awesome if you had a good group. What kind of bonuses did you have in mind per gambled die by the way.
olstar18 1 year ago
I always thought the chance of a roll means more than just the pc's ability. There are all sorts of variables in the environment etc. I would be really disappointed if mechanics are designed based on character ability only. I would hate to play in a game where the DM or players can call the success/failures. I say give me my five percent chance.
Anyway good idea looking into the dice mechanics, You got me thinking...
MetaRockwell 1 year ago
I don't really care if the mechanics are changed at all. I do dislike the D20 roll but the bell curve doesn't mean much to me because I really prefer story driven games. you have given me what I want though- more chances to have a character driven story and it is now much less about the DM vs. the players and more about how the group and the individual characters create a shared story experience. I like having more say in both the story and the possible outcome of smaller events within the plot
highpriestrsw2 1 year ago
4E: Remove 1/2 level bonus, set DC to 25, 3d6 base roll. Now you can use penalties!
On the whole, however, it should be able to translate pretty decently to D&D. The big question, of course, would be: Do you tell the players the DCs up front? Say a goblin has AC 14, Fort 12, Ref 15, Will 11. I'd be inclined to keep that information from the PCs, since I keep it from them in normal D&D. Not knowing precisely how much oomph you need to put into your blows sounds like a pretty fun time...
Amphiprison 1 year ago
If you tweak all D20 rules into something more roleplayable (not only this few examples), that could be a best seller.
The most known and loved characheters and environment without those horribly restrictive, computer-oriented rules? That could make me go back to my DND books and games after having sweared not to even look at them for the rest of my life.
adalpo 1 year ago
@adalpo Changing the dice probabilities to a bell curve will not have any impact on the inherent restrictiveness of the system itself. It's the classes and the formulaic spells that tie you down in the end.
hathiphnath 1 year ago
@adalpo I find some D20 simplificacions from Lone Wolf kinda neat regarding Skills. Though, that defeats the "doesn't change the char sheet" part.
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
Don't know, man. I mean, it's just easier and far more simple to change the 1d20 for 2d10. It both gives a sinple bell curve and allows the group to keep all the pluses and minuses in place, without having to calculate for anything. Also, it takes into account the situations in which a character ends up with a negative modifier. Yeah, I love d10 systems, but I think it would make sense in this "rules conversion".
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
@ivanmontserrat Don't guess! Try it out! See what happens!
LordStrange 1 year ago 3
@ivanmontserrat If you want to change dice, you should use 3d6 - not 2d10 - instead of d20.
d20 roll is average 10,5.
2d10 roll is average 11.
3d6 roll is avarage 10,5.
insurgii 1 year ago
@insurgii
The overall range of numbers is more important than a half-point of average outcome, especially the upper range. Critical-based builds are already messed up enough by the very notion of a bell curve.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
lol
Holy Cow...
Looking forward to see how you'll handle dmg
BenitoIncognito 1 year ago
I can see what you are saying about the d20 but something about it still appeals to me. Especially when you've played old d&d and realize the d20 is better than what came before. I also agree w the thought the system is what it is- with all the systems out there if you don't like d20, just play in a different system. I love having all the different systems. It gives each game it's own feel. My fav system SLA industries uses 2d10. And I also love Amber- diceless roleplaying. I think each system
cengelun 1 year ago
I'll set some dice apart for the princesses lock. ;-)
According to your system you'll not fail the roll of the dice if you have an equal amount of dice as the target number. If not you're still able to fail the roll.
LuisureSuitLarry 1 year ago
what do you do if you're attempting to use a skill or stat that you have a negative modifier in? example: my Dex is only 9 giving me a dice pool of -1D6 and I need to climb this rope. what do I roll?
geeksqrd 1 year ago
I have what I consider to be a decent gaming group, and I would try this. The one issue that I think I would have would be THEIR comfort in narrating what happens. They would be so uncertain of what they could do, I think they would err on the side of, "So, I did it. What happens?" Any thoughts or advice on prepping them?
drwrule2002 1 year ago
Much love for this notion and all the others.... Ill be sure to try it as soon as i can and let you know how it goes. One thing: The concept of the Vorpal sword has always pissed me off, you have a big bad that the players have fought long and hard just to get to and in the first round of the final fight one of the players rolls a nat 20 on a vorpal sword. Okay fight over, lets go home. With this system the vorpal sword can instead say: Each die wagered counts twice. Lots more damage!
fulange 1 year ago
You should have inserted this clip as a cut scene when talking about failing to pick the lock of the princess: watch?v=QUtdKm6lERQ
hathiphnath 1 year ago
This sounds very interesting, but i'm afraid that at higher levels (or even mid-levels) this can make for a very screwy game. Any kind of specialised character at higher level (maxed ranks, good linked atribute, skill focus, masterwork tools) would have incredibly high dice-pools, to the point where they could roll dice equal to half the dificulty and still have 5 or 6 wagers on the side.
The odds of such a character failing at any given task is incredibly low.
Valthek 1 year ago
@Valthek Not if the player chooses to fail
MorrowTHEjedi 1 year ago
@MorrowTHEjedi
Sorry for the late(er) reply, but my statement was not exactly what I meant
What I meant to say was: The odds of the player of a character like that NOT getting what he wants is incredibly low
Valthek 1 year ago
I'll get my group to trying this, as soon as you tell me how to deal with damage. You prolly have some dirty way of dealing with that don't you? ;)
HighHammerNoob 1 year ago
I find your approach very valid, and will try it out.
But also, I'd like to give another point of view: is there something great about dice (or luck) in (rpg) games?
Definitely, because even those less capable players (in creativity, logic, larp actions, convincing) can succeed. I remember you once mentioned a player asking (was it in larp): "why do you punish me for being not atheltic?" or something like that. My counter question is: why punish a player for being not as smart or persuasive?
ludoka13 1 year ago
I agree the d20 itself sucks but taking it out of the d20 system is kinda... useless?!
I like the idea but why try to repair a "brocken" system like d20 when you have a lot of nice rpg systems to choose from?
Or is it just for the fun of it and a challange for you as a games designer?
hoboyho 1 year ago
I really try and not bag an idea but I am this time I will explain as best I can.
This simply changes D&D to houses of the blooded.
Now pluses becoming dice.
Bull strength suddenly becomes much more advantageous.
Aside from mechanical problems where there will always be problems it's a complete change of concept for people.
When you said bell curves, I was thinking roll 3D6 where ever is says roll a D20
But this is a real problem for players that are comfortable with the D20 system.
Cont.
Caladors 1 year ago
Cont.
This means complete change of thought which maybe cool for certain people but cause upsets for others.
Limits often help people in what they want to do.
Failer in role playing can be interesting and I think it always is if you have a good GM.
In this instance your seating power in hopes of interesting storylines.
Hope is a poor strategy.
This also increases antagonism between GM's and players.
The mechanics make it so that to challange players without wages...
Cont...
Caladors 1 year ago
... such as in non contest style such as rock climbing and such you have to accually completely change the mechanics of the game impossiable challanges become merely inconvenient.
Like I said the mechanics will always cause problems but in this case the GM must do more work which the players may simply see as railroading or box cannon.
Additionally some charaters at lower levels become high incompetent.
But ultimently it changes the feel of D&D.
It's about heroic success and dismal failer.
Caladors 1 year ago
Well, if you were doing a conversion from 4e, as long as you have positive stats, you wouldn't have any problem, because there are tons of +s to be found...proficiency in weapons (+2 or +3 generally) and tons of things make you better at skills (foot pads for stealth, rope for climbing).
CalvinOsiris 1 year ago
I think starting with 3d6 before modifiers adding dice for much of the DnD world such as low level combat, is a good start. Then having a -2 modifier can still gain a success of a simple task (target# of 5) but you would have to be competent without negative modifiers to be able choose success or failure for something in the DC 15 range.
Consider "Rolling 6s": if all your dice (possibly 1) are all 6s roll another die. There is your very exciting Crit Vegas moment. 1 die and need a 15? 6, 6, 3
GameLogician 1 year ago
This method does a good job of fixing those odd instances where a dice roll can end a game: "Do you dive out of the giant stone door before it seals you all in for good?"
In vanilla the GM would just have to fudge like a crazy man, simply making his players roll to create a false sense of drama. In the d6 version you have the option of just messing with them a bit "Oh no! It crushed your foot!". Huge potential for fun fuckery, plus they know they really do stand to lose something.
thepoemwhatiwrote 1 year ago
@thepoemwhatiwrote If you have to fudge dice rolls, why roll at all? I mean, if you have to cheat, that says something about the rules you are using.
LordStrange 1 year ago
@LordStrange The rules are indeed weak, to the point that they even mention the need to fudge in the rule books. However, back to your point, not rolling (in this case) is just as bad as rolling. In both instances you're missing out on a potentially exciting moment, striping the players of any agency, and being rather lame, all because DnD's very binary logic can't accommodate it.
thepoemwhatiwrote 1 year ago
One very important question. How would you deal with damage?
Maybe calculate a damage average and multiply the value by your wagers?
thadrine 1 year ago
@thadrine See a future installment on hit points. (Hint: they suck!)
LordStrange 1 year ago
@LordStrange What about feats?!
HighHammerNoob 1 year ago
Ran this through the d20 combat sim spreadsheet, but with the dice pool idea v d20. There is a small bit of breakage, but nothing worth worrying about. So long as the character has a positive stat, there's no problem. Given the average build values placing each stat at +1, this isn't an issue. Using the 4e +5 for training means that a trained stat will be at least 6d6 - which means that on the std d20 DC scale, they'd easily average a roll of 20. Which isn't shabby for a 1st level character...
ekb65536 1 year ago
@ekb65536 Scale would definately be a problems for skills. And making it work in 3.5 is joke. I know my 3rd level Bard had a Diplomacy skill of about +16 on average
But many other similar systems would actually work well. I thought about incorporating this into Ars Magica, and I have already done similar with Mutants and Masterminds.
thadrine 1 year ago
I actually did something exactly like this for a Mutants and Masterminds game that I ran. It worked out great and I loved it. However, not all of the players felt the same way. One play that it was great idea and really enjoyed it. One did not understand it at all and just kept roll a d20, even though we told him he would never need it. And one absolutely hated the idea because "You changed the rules!" The last player did not care so much for because it meant he would have to come up with stuff
thadrine 1 year ago
Your mechanic heavily distorts game balance. Low and negative bonuses now have no chance to succeed at average rolls - for instance, the success rate for a +1 roll at DCs of 5, 10 and 15 goes from 80%, 60% and 30% to ~16%, 0 and 0 - while increases to already high bonuses yield increasingly disproportionate returns. Just thinking about Epic magic in this system gives me a headache.
If you want a bell curve, roll 2d10. It's almost the same range of numbers, and it still accommodates most builds.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM I think the implication is that the DC is always 15, no matter what. Just as in HotB it is always 10.
CalvinOsiris 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Do you mean the success rate for someone who has only a +1 bonus? No other bonuses? Ask yourself why any character with only a +1 in *anything* should be trying that risk.
LordStrange 1 year ago
@LordStrange Sometimes you have no choice but to try. The beauty is that if the job is beyond your skill level it isn't the end of the world it just is in the hands of the GM.
GameLogician 1 year ago
@GameLogician Ah, but if you insert game mechanics that allow for heroic actions then you don't have to rely on dice rolls! (See "Part 2" tomorrow!) ;)
LordStrange 1 year ago 2
@LordStrange
Every game I've ever been in has invariably involved at least one character being forced into a situation outside of his area of expertise at some point. An untrained skill check is likely to fall between -2 and +2, as is a bad save bonus. Spellcasters forced to defend themselves in close combat also come to mind, especially at low levels.
The problem also manifests at the other end of the spectrum, where the discrepency increases exponentially with increasing bonuses.
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
E.g. the rate of success for +10 against DC 25 is roughly doubled, and +15 beats DC 50 more than half of the time. Which is what prompted my comment about Epic magic.
I'm not opposed to your paradigm, but I think you're inserting it somewhere it doesn't belong. At this point, if you really want to "fix" DnD, I really think you're better off just running it diceless.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Correction: inserting it in an ill-conceived manner.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@LordStrange I am not fast.
I will attempt to run in front of a car to save a kid.
Ball's in your court.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 Sometimes failure is more interesting.
LordStrange 1 year ago
@LordStrange You asked why anybody with a +1 should be trying a risk. I told you why somebody with a +0 would be trying a risk.
And failure is only interesting in gaming when players want their characters to fail (or at least don't care either way). Else it is a fun killer. You've actually stated the case for this in your thoughts on "whiff factor".
azirk83 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Also, by changing not hitting the TN from "fail" to "the DM says how your character succeeds or fails," you change the entire paradigm of the game. Failure isn't the only option; the character can *fail forward* in such a way that the game doesn't stop but it creates further complications.
LordStrange 1 year ago 2
Yes, this makes D&D sound fun!
fragmad 1 year ago
I think I might try this, if nothing else for a short adventure just to see how it works. I like the idea that a good character gets to be good at, you know, whatever their particular bailiwick is. In a D&D setting (or d20 anything, really) would you still rely on the Houses Injuries and Scars system, since the action du jour is kill it with fire?
CalvinOsiris 1 year ago
Neat idea. I would try this. Totally.
PagrZero 1 year ago
I like the HoB mechanics, especially Wagers. Kickass idea! Mechanically though, converting D20 bonuses into D6s would break rather quick would be my guess (havnt played nor tested it so cant say for certain). But for what´s its worth, I find your HoB mechanics better dramatical tools than the D20 mechanics;)
Nejira 1 year ago
@Nejira I thought about that. One of the other things I don't like about the d20 system is the lack of weapon skills. I think I'd add weapon skills as well.
LordStrange 1 year ago
This is pretty neat. But I'm curious about negative stats (I think less dice for sucking fine), and also LOW stats.
Lets say a goblin has AC 15. That means a first level thief with a 14 strength (burly thief) including would roll 2 dice to attack a the goblin (he could perhaps get more by flanking, so 4 dice). But the fact is they'd have a near impossible chances to hit anything.
I think this would be awesome! BUT all difficulty numbers would need to be reduced or changed to a flat number.
jtheunfathom 1 year ago
I think this salvages the heroic adventure story of games like D&D, but also allows for the subtleties and nuances in less heroic stories that might be told by d20 modern or other "more real" settings.
bschuitema 1 year ago
Amen! Way too random, way too easy to fail even when competent. Bell Curve.... yes please.
bschuitema 1 year ago