Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SystemsTestCanary]

Time to use this account for the purpose I actually made it for.

I came up with this idea while thinking about how many Roll to Dodge GM's implement skills and difficulty by adding or subtracting to the result of the dice. I've never liked this idea because it's tricky to fit rolls like 7 or -1 into the RTD rules in a consistent way.
So I came up with these rules that change the chances that the player will get a particular roll, rather than changing the roll itself.

Rules:
Single dice are interpreted according to normal Roll to Dodge rules.

All dice are d6.

However, the number and "type" of dice rolled is modified by skills, difficulty and other context, similar to Cogent's "challenge level" mechanic.

Each action that is rolled for (i.e. not a free action) uses at least one die - exactly one normal die corresponding to the one die in normal RTD, plus possible bonus or penalty dice.

There is always one, and only one, normal die for an action.

If the GM rules that an action is more difficult than usual because of extra difficulty, negative status effects, or other conditions at the GM's discretion, an amount of penalty dice are added to the group of dice being rolled for that action. (I should probably call them something different, because they represent harmful conditions in-game, rather than being penalties applied to a player for punishment. Though the GM could do that, certainly.)

If the GM rules that a character has an advantage at performing an action due to character skills, helpful status effects, or other conditions at the GM's discretion, an amount of bonus dice are added to the group of dice being rolled for that action.

The group of dice is then interpreted as follows:
1. The number of penalty and bonus dice are counted and each pair of penalty and bonus dice "cancel" each other out, and each pair is removed form the group, essentially subtracting the smaller group from the larger. For example, if an action required 3 penalty dice, one normal die, and 2 bonus dice, the resulting group would be:
1 normal die and 1 penalty die (3 penalty dice - 2 bonus dice = 1 penalty die.)
2. Every remaining die in the group is rolled.
If there is only a single die, its roll obviously is the one that counts towards the action, and is interpreted with normal RTD rules.
If there is more than one die, the roll that counts is the lowest roll if the extra (non-normal) dice are penalty dice, and it is the highest roll if the extra dice are bonus dice.
Various examples:
- 2 penalty dice, plus the one normal die, are rolled. The penalty dice rolled 3 and 4, and the normal die rolled 5. The roll that counts towards the action is 3 because the lowest roll counts if there are penalty dice.
- Same as above except the normal die rolled 2. The role that counts is the normal die's 2 because penalty dice can't replace the normal die with a higher roll.
- 2 bonus dice, plus the normal die, are rolled. The normal die rolled a 1, but the bonus dice rolled 2 and 5. The 5 counts because the highest roll counts if there are bonus dice.

So, what are your thoughts on this system, as players and GM's? Ease of use? Balance? Any other comments?

EDIT: made description of the normal die more clear.

[MeimieFan88]

I like this. Makes sense and easy to implement. Kind of reminds me a bit of the D&D advantage/disadvantage system and similar implementations in Pathfinder.

[Dustan Hache]

okay, this looks solid for the most part, but time to pick it apart anyway.how are penalty/bonus dice handled in the case of multiple "normal" dice? is the highest/lowest of the normal dice replaced, or is it at GM disceretion?
What happens when a player attempts a impossible action that would potentially break reality/the space time continuum/The fourth wall?
How would you handle combat with this system between players?

[BlackPaladin99]

I think its a good idea.  id like to see a game that uses this. 

[A_Curious_Cat]

okay, this looks solid for the most part, but time to pick it apart anyway.
1.  how are penalty/bonus dice handled in the case of multiple "normal" dice? is the highest/lowest of the normal dice replaced, or is it at GM disceretion?

2.  What happens when a player attempts a impossible action that would potentially break reality/the space time continuum/The fourth wall?

3.  How would you handle combat with this system between players?

(numbers and spacing added.)

1.  Can’t comment without knowing how multiple normal dice are treated in RTD.

2.  Action automatically fails?  Or action is treated as if the PC was a lunatic?  Or action is ignored by the GM?

3.  How about using the above mechanics for each player and then using the results for a final vying roll?

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

An interesting take on what most would recognize as D&D's advantage/disadvantage system (a&d). The biggest problem with the system is that it stops working at about the same point as the plus/minus system(+&-). After that point you end up making the dice roll too predictable even if it works better than +&- because it stays inside of the 1 to 6 paradigm and allows for crit fails and success still.

Spoiler: Chance of rolling a number when taking the highest result for 0a to 6a (click to show/hide)

# of a	|	0a	1a	2a	3a	4a	5a	6a
% chance of a 1	|	%16.67	%02.78	%00.46	%00.08	%00.01	%00.00	%00.00
% chance of a 2	|	%16.67	%08.33	%03.24	%01.16	%00.40	%00.14	%00.05
% chance of a 3	|	%16.67	%13.89	%08.80	%05.02	%02.71	%01.43	%00.74
% chance of a 4	|	%16.67	%19.44	%17.13	%13.50	%10.04	%07.22	%05.07
% chance of a 5	|	%16.67	%25.00	%28.24	%28.47	%27.02	%24.71	%22.06
% chance of a 6	|	%16.67	%30.56	%42.13	%51.77	%59.81	%66.51	%72.09

So while I would take a&d over +&- it works under a similar restriction. Though to be fair any dice roll system that isn't competitive (roll vs roll instead of roll vs target) will cap out quickly relative to size of dice which is why both systems cap out so quickly compared to the d20 system. I would look to something similar to the Star Wars Fantasy Flight RPG and their boost/setback system. Instead of directly modifying the result of the normal die, it boosts or setbacks whatever the result is. They also cancel each other out like the other systems and I would still use a&d as it allows for counting in simple things like being behind cover or being caught unaware.

Anyway, they are based off of improv's system of "yes and". So you don't cancel out the fact something happened but rather add on to it. So a person defending against a micromissile might fail their defense roll but with a successful boost as they are blown back they manage to grab onto a nearby bit of scenery and swing behind it for cover. On the other hand they might have been successful, bringing their repulsor shield up to block it but have a couple setback dice that succeed and so they are stunned for a moment because of the explosion and some nearby scenery is blown up removing the potential of using it as cover. You can also combine multiple boosts or setbacks. So with that last example instead of being stunned and losing potential cover, instead their shield blinks out for a turn as the tech needs to reset.

One of the things you can do with this kind of system is that you can design equipment and abilities to make use of a&d. So lets say the player was instead the one that used the micromissile. It could have been an emp micromissile with an effect that requires 2 boost to knock out tech for a turn. The biggest problem with this kind of system is that it tends to be based around rapid interaction so when a player gets multiple successful boost they can choose how they want to spend it which doesn't work as well in a pbp game. This can somewhat be gotten around by having the player decide how they want to use their boost or leave it up to you (setback is of course always in the hand of the DM).

Also, there is one other interesting concept from the SW FF RPG that I can't quite remember (and so will be likely getting something wrong) but it is basically a luck system. There is a pool of "luck" based on the players "luck" and the players start with it all. They can decide to use it to add things to their rolls but then that bit of luck is subtracted from the players pool and is added to the DMs pool to use later against the players (at which point it would return to the players). Of course this system is pretty much limited to team play and not pvp and is also one of those things that you want to keep low.

[SystemsTestCanary]

I like this. Makes sense and easy to implement. Kind of reminds me a bit of the D&D advantage/disadvantage system and similar implementations in Pathfinder.

Thanks.
I'm not familiar with that system, but several replies have mentioned it.

okay, this looks solid for the most part, but time to pick it apart anyway.how are penalty/bonus dice handled in the case of multiple "normal" dice? is the highest/lowest of the normal dice replaced, or is it at GM disceretion?
What happens when a player attempts a impossible action that would potentially break reality/the space time continuum/The fourth wall?
How would you handle combat with this system between players?

1. There is only 1 normal die.
2. GM discretion, same as those actions would be handled in a normal RTD - i.e. the GM would hopefully set out guidelines about those situations before the game starts.
3. I am not sure how combat/opposing actions would be handled. I could look into how normal RTD's do it (not entirely sure how it works though I've seen vs. rolls) and simply use that method on the roll that results from each action's dice group (as A_Curious_Cat suggested), or could have a mechanic where some of your dice can cancel out you opponent's.

I think its a good idea.  id like to see a game that uses this. 

I plan to run an experimental game with this system soon, in this very forum. Have to have a setting/plan first, of course - I have very little GM'ing experience. Maybe just some sort of deathmatch game to limit the amount of plotting needed?

An interesting take on what most would recognize as D&D's advantage/disadvantage system (a&d). The biggest problem with the system is that it stops working at about the same point as the plus/minus system(+&-). After that point you end up making the dice roll too predictable even if it works better than +&- because it stays inside of the 1 to 6 paradigm and allows for crit fails and success still.

Spoiler: Chance of rolling a number when taking the highest result for 0a to 6a (click to show/hide)

# of a	|	0a	1a	2a	3a	4a	5a	6a
% chance of a 1	|	%16.67	%02.78	%00.46	%00.08	%00.01	%00.00	%00.00
% chance of a 2	|	%16.67	%08.33	%03.24	%01.16	%00.40	%00.14	%00.05
% chance of a 3	|	%16.67	%13.89	%08.80	%05.02	%02.71	%01.43	%00.74
% chance of a 4	|	%16.67	%19.44	%17.13	%13.50	%10.04	%07.22	%05.07
% chance of a 5	|	%16.67	%25.00	%28.24	%28.47	%27.02	%24.71	%22.06
% chance of a 6	|	%16.67	%30.56	%42.13	%51.77	%59.81	%66.51	%72.09

So while I would take a&d over +&- it works under a similar restriction. Though to be fair any dice roll system that isn't competitive (roll vs roll instead of roll vs target) will cap out quickly relative to size of dice which is why both systems cap out so quickly compared to the d20 system. I would look to something similar to the Star Wars Fantasy Flight RPG and their boost/setback system. Instead of directly modifying the result of the normal die, it boosts or setbacks whatever the result is. They also cancel each other out like the other systems and I would still use a&d as it allows for counting in simple things like being behind cover or being caught unaware.

Anyway, they are based off of improv's system of "yes and". So you don't cancel out the fact something happened but rather add on to it. So a person defending against a micromissile might fail their defense roll but with a successful boost as they are blown back they manage to grab onto a nearby bit of scenery and swing behind it for cover. On the other hand they might have been successful, bringing their repulsor shield up to block it but have a couple setback dice that succeed and so they are stunned for a moment because of the explosion and some nearby scenery is blown up removing the potential of using it as cover. You can also combine multiple boosts or setbacks. So with that last example instead of being stunned and losing potential cover, instead their shield blinks out for a turn as the tech needs to reset.

One of the things you can do with this kind of system is that you can design equipment and abilities to make use of a&d. So lets say the player was instead the one that used the micromissile. It could have been an emp micromissile with an effect that requires 2 boost to knock out tech for a turn. The biggest problem with this kind of system is that it tends to be based around rapid interaction so when a player gets multiple successful boost they can choose how they want to spend it which doesn't work as well in a pbp game. This can somewhat be gotten around by having the player decide how they want to use their boost or leave it up to you (setback is of course always in the hand of the DM).

Yes, the system I've described would need careful balancing to make sure players couldn't simply stack several dice to become essentially auto-successful. GM's could limit the game features that give players extra bonus dice, or add categories of bonus dice that are mutually exclusive, or simply have a cap on the number of bonus dice that could be rolled for particular actions.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

Yes, the system I've described would need careful balancing to make sure players couldn't simply stack several dice to become essentially auto-successful. GM's could limit the game features that give players extra bonus dice, or add categories of bonus dice that are mutually exclusive, or simply have a cap on the number of bonus dice that could be rolled for particular actions.

It's not so much the balance as it is the fact that as a singular system there isn't anything to balance it with and even getting too far beyond a single advantage die will skew the results massively one way or another. Even at +2a you've basically removed the most extreme negative result as there is less than half of a percent chance of it happening and at +3a there isn't even a tenth of a percent chance. D&D 5E had a good reason for why they only allowed 1 advantage or disadvantage die to a roll. I still like this system more than just pure numbers being added or removed as it does still allow for someone to roll all 1s or all 6s and beat the odds. Though with +3a you only have 6.26% chance of getting a result of 3 or less. That is well below half the chance of getting any kind of negative result (or positive if it was +3d) than getting any one specific result from a simple d6 roll. Even at +2a the chance of a negative result is 12.5% which is still less than the chance of getting any one specific result on a d6.

[Dustan Hache]

Each action that is rolled for (i.e. not a free action) uses at least one die, like normal RTD. The die that will be rolled for any non-free action no matter any bonuses or penalties is called the normal die.

1. There is only 1 normal die.

This section of the rules should be clarified since there is never supposed to be more than 1 normal die in a roll. A suggestion for wording as follows:

Each action that is rolled for (i.e. not a free action) uses at least exactly one die, like most normal RTDs. This die will be rolled for any non-free action no matter any bonuses or penalties, and is called the normal die.

[SystemsTestCanary]

Each action that is rolled for (i.e. not a free action) uses at least one die, like normal RTD. The die that will be rolled for any non-free action no matter any bonuses or penalties is called the normal die.

1. There is only 1 normal die.

This section of the rules should be clarified since there is never supposed to be more than 1 normal die in a roll. A suggestion for wording as follows:

Each action that is rolled for (i.e. not a free action) uses at least exactly one die, like most normal RTDs. This die will be rolled for any non-free action no matter any bonuses or penalties, and is called the normal die.

Thanks. "Exactly" is inaccurate because of these bonus or penalty dice. I wrote "at least" to include both the normal die, and the possible bonus or penalty dice, but I see it was unclear.