Print

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

[Kadzar]

That was based on the assumption that one is always a failure. And I don't really see what technical problems could arise. I mean... you rolled a 1, the worst possible outcome, your roll fails (unless you're using like a d100 with a roll-under rule in which case 1 is the best and 100 is the worst or whatever, but I shouldn't have to be so pedantic to get my point across). Also, I believe that's the way it works for skill checks and such in D&D (with the opposite but equal rule being that 20 is always a pass IIRC), so take it up with WOTC.

No, unless you're using houserules, 1 being an auto-miss and 20 being an auto-hit only apply to attack rolls and saves. Skill checks and other such things do not use that rule.

[Tarran]

Actually, I think I've figured out a way. The bonuses add to the dice size, rather than give direct bonuses. And the new numbers would only be positive results while all the other results remain static. That would give a smooth transition with diminishing returns and keep the chance of failure. It would also work with competitive rolls: Obviously the guy with the bigger die has a better chance.

I had a similar idea with making skills/attributes instead add points to a value which determined what table you would roll, but that didn't work with competitive rolls. However, this does, so I'm a happy camper now.

Well, unless someone can see a very serious flaw with my idea.

[SeriousConcentrate]

No, unless you're using houserules, 1 being an auto-miss and 20 being an auto-hit only apply to attack rolls and saves. Skill checks and other such things do not use that rule.

I meant saves but I typed skill checks. ^^^; I can't explain why other than my brain doesn't work so good sometimes. But yeah, you're right.

[IronyOwl]

Actually, I think I've figured out a way. The bonuses add to the dice size, rather than give direct bonuses. And the new numbers would only be positive results while all the other results remain static. That would give a smooth transition with diminishing returns and keep the chance of failure. It would also work with competitive rolls: Obviously the guy with the bigger die has a better chance.

I had a similar idea with making skills/attributes instead add points to a value which determined what table you would roll, but that didn't work with competitive rolls. However, this does, so I'm a happy camper now.

Well, unless someone can see a very serious flaw with my idea.

That's more or less Sean Mirrsen's system, isn't it? I never liked that notion because I tend to use physical dice and it sounded a bit complex, but I never saw a downside to it otherwise.

An alternate solution might be allowing rerolls/rolls for salvaging a failure. It's less granular and I'm not sure how much less complex than the aforementioned, but it's an option.

[BlasterKyubey210]

Mmm, I want to try an experimental RtD rule, using diepools of d6s/d10s for some reason... anyone have advice to make sure the diepools from bonuses don't get too nutty?

[Tarran]

That's more or less Sean Mirrsen's system, isn't it? I never liked that notion because I tend to use physical dice and it sounded a bit complex, but I never saw a downside to it otherwise.

I wouldn't know, I've never looked at it, so if it is it's an idea of completely separate origin.

[Kadzar]

I've heard that bigger dice sizes for skills is how the Cortex system (the one the Serenity RPG is based of off) works. And they use regular dice for that. I think, statistically, an increased die size is worse than a +1, on average. Yeah, testing it out on AnyDice, it seems that a +1 has the same average as a die 2 integers larger, and the larger die has a higher standard deviation, meaning you're more likely not to get the higher number than if you had used a +1.

If you want to use this as representing higher skill, the nice thing is that your chance to roll a 1 goes down slightly, though, if you want the chance to succeed to go up, rather than down, that may take some futzing to get it to work right. Possibly you could have it be that a higher skill will give you, first a +1, then a higher dice with another number acting as a success. So, for instance, you'd go from 1d6 (where 6 is a success) to 1d6+1 (where 7 is a success) to 1d8 (where 7 or 8 are a success), which you need because the chance of rolling either 7 or 8 is less than rolling a 7 on the 1d6+1, but adding the probabilities of rolling a 7 or 8 goes from 12.5% individually to 25%, whereas the chance of rolling a 7 on a 1d6+1 is 16.67% (same as rolling a 6 on a 1d6). I mean, you could probably just go with a higher die with one more number acting as a success, but it seems like a bit of a jump. And you can do this all the way up to 1d12+1, or higher if you're willing to use imaginary dice.

[Harry Baldman]

You could also explode the die on critical failures and perhaps apply the bonus to that. It would work like this:

John Smith has a +2 to his Genericness roll. His Genericness is then used in a situation.

Roll: 1-->2+2 = less severe dismal failure.

Roll: 2+2 = 4 = minor success

Roll: 5+2 = 6 = critical success

Roll: 6-->6+2 = the Oh God What The Hell Just Happened Over The Moon Overshot Of Maximum Pain And Destruction

The principle is similar, but I propose it nonetheless because I like the exploding die. It makes the 1-->1 and the 6-->6 much more well-founded and special.

[BlasterKyubey210]

Yea... I mean with exploding dice, you have at least a final chance to get out of your potential failiure but I'm not too sure then.

The diepool concept on my end gets a bit silly but here's something I'm thinking about:

In short, the distance between Epic Failure and Epic Success gets a bit messy but by couting the number of dice that come up a 5 or 6 (via d6 pools) or 8, 9 and 0 (via d10 pools) would put a nice distance between epic disaster and simply major disaster... the problem is how to modify the modifiers to reflect the diepool system, instead of doing 1 roll.

[Kadzar]

When I actually stop to think about it for a second, I realized that adding a +1 to a die doesn't change it's probabilities at all, just the numbers that come up. So you could just use a d6, d8, d10, and d12, adding one number to those that count as a success as you go up a die step (6 for d6, 7 and 8 for d8, and so on). And 1 would still be a failure and the probability of it occurring will go down.

Of course, this does limit how high you can go in iterations without using imaginary dice, so it's not a perfect solution for all situations, but it does work if you can limit how readily you give out increasing skills or bonuses. I don't know if a dicepool mechanic would work better; I haven't yet figured out how to put one of those into AnyDice.

[BlasterKyubey210]

Mmm, I think someone already calclated the odds of a "World of Darkness"-style Diepool roll for a set of d10s...

I'm also not sure if there's a diepool calculator for a d6 for that matter.

http://www.unseelie.org/cgi-bin/dicepo.cgi - Actually Kadzar, try this... though mind you this does NOT include specific quirks that come in some games (Exalted's "10s count as two successes", World of Darkness' "Roll again on a 10 for additional Successes" and such)

[Kadzar]

http://www.unseelie.org/cgi-bin/dicepo.cgi - Actually Kadzar, try this... though mind you this does NOT include specific quirks that come in some games (Exalted's "10s count as two successes", World of Darkness' "Roll again on a 10 for additional Successes" and such)

That's cool, although it only gives the base probabilities of a roll, not the average or standard deviation. It should be somewhat helpful, though I feel I still don't know enough about dicepools to can trust them.

[BlasterKyubey210]

Yea, although since modifiers in a Diepool format means you add or take away dice instead, at least it helps, right?

[Harry Baldman]

Okay, Idea I Will Never Ever Realize (And Anyone Else Is Welcome To Take, Should They Want To And Deem It Not Full Of Utter Suckage) the Sixty-Seventh.

How about this:

The Power Of A Caged Mind: A Dual RTD

Here's the deal: you are a group of convicts of varying degrees of sociopathy, craziness, violence and all sorts of other fun things. All of you are in prison, and even the most harmless of your number is at least 20 years away from freedom. The food sucks, the guards are assholes and you're pretty sure that guy three cells down the block has a fresh new shiv he'd like to introduce to your ribs. Or not. He's kind of crazy that way. The point is, a high-security prison is hardly the vacation destination you imagined yourself being in at this time when you were younger.

However, you think you could escape. It would take a plan, tools, accomplices and possibly a riot, but you're pretty sure you could pull it off, given time, pressure and other factors. You must escape. You are not spending all your life behind bars. This escape has to happen, and it has to happen soon, 'cause you're unsure you could take any more of this place. Especially with that new reeducation program that's in place. Seriously, screw that crap.

What, you don't know about the re-education program? Well, it goes a little bit like this: the prison's taking part in a re-education experiment using something called "Virtual Reality". Sounds like bullshit to you, but hey, you're in prison, so what do you know. You see, they want you to log at least 1 hour a day in VR where you wield virtually unlimited powers and cannot permanently die. Sounds like all fun and games, right? Newsflash: it isn't. You have to spend this hour doing something constructive, usually to accomplish some kind of lame-ass objective the warden sets out for you. If you don't, well, you get sent for analysis. And analysis doesn't just take a whole day, it's also apparently ridiculously painful and somewhat debilitating. So you have to dance like a monkey for the warden and hope it's not your noggin that gets electrodes stuck to it the next day. Fun, eh?

To make a long story short: you need to escape this fucking nightmare. Right the fuck now.

Spoiler: How Does This Work? (click to show/hide)

The Basic Idea: My idea is, this would work sort of like Roll to Roll to Dodge where you're essentially playing two games at once, except this time you'd play a regular prison RTD and a minimalist VR RTD. The day would be divided up into turns, each taking about 15 minutes. You get about 4 hours in total outside of your cell, of which 15-30 minutes are spent on your lunch break. The rest can be spent getting stabbed by socializing with other convicts, working out, picking out books to read in your solitary cell, setting up your escape and, of course, using the VR, among other things. Each of these can be very important in the success of your escape, particularly the VR.

The VR: You have to use it for at least 1 hour (4 turns out of 16) a day, with each day having its own objective and a certain amount of points. It would work in a minimalist fashion, with things happening with very little reason or rhyme and based entirely on unmodifiable d6 rolls. At the end of the day, the warden will evaluate how well you've done at your project. If it's good, worry not. If it's bad, be afraid. Be very afraid. If your project is judged the worst, you are sent for analysis. Analysis hurts and sometimes (depending on rolls, yes) causes temporary or permanent physical or mental penalties in addition to taking up the entire next day, essentially robbing you of a lot of time, relatively speaking. You have to spend at least an hour a day in the VR, though you can spend more if you feel the project needs it and you don't feel particularly pressed for more time to escape. There are no limits to what you can do in VR - you can create, destroy, help and, of course, hinder and sabotage to your heart's content. Just be careful not to be too overtly destructive. Work in VR is sorted by block: all the players are in the same block and thus will be directly competing with one another.

The Escape: It's the only reason for you to exist - the sweet promise of eventual escape to yourself. You can escape in any number of ways, but you will have to work hard for it. It is a high-security prison, after all. However, it is definitely possible in several different ways. It is ultimately up to you (and possibly Lady Luck) which avenue you wish to pursue, however.

How to Lose: There are several ways: get analyzed too much or too severely, get a shiv in the vitals, get caught in a half-assed escape - you're going down. And when you do, a new inmate will be reluctantly shuffled into the block. This will be the new player. Be nice to him. He's new here.

The Players: All are inmates, and the prison can be either a men's or women's, depending on player wishes. It doesn't really matter all that much. They start with a certain skill or two based on their biography and possibly a weakness as well. Depends on the particular GM's vision. There will probably be about 6-8 in total, with an asshole/model prisoner NPC or two perhaps thrown in to shake things up a bit and let the GM screw with players all the more.

I got this idea from mixing together Roll to Roll to Dodge with my very own headcanon background explanation for the Art of Minimalism RTDs. Whaddaya think?

[Xantalos]

Very good.
What was your head canon for the Art of Minimalism?