Will changing the RPG Dice Mechanic fix my problem? ~ A case study

[@yourseatatthetable]

It's my experience that creating modifiers for a game are a tricky biz. There's a balance, somewhere, but sometimes what we forget is that modifiers exist to counter other modifiers, if you will. A fighter's feat, for example, granting a modifier in combat is, more often than not, intended to counter or equal some sort of advantage that their foe has. In some cases, both sides have modifiers that cancel each other's out, unless there is an unequal balance. The most common example of this is a higher level character/opponent facing off against a character/opponent who is weaker or lower in abilities.

[@FalkFlak]

I had this discussion so often with fellow alleged designers. They always want a 3d6 mechanism because it's so "reliable". And so I ask, "OK instead of a 50% on a coin you want 50% on 3d6, is that right?" That's when they sometimes realise it's not about the probability but about the range of numbers. If you have any kind of quality Assessment like success by 0 is worse than success by +3, like in GURPS, than you can make it more reliable with more dice. Otherwise there is no reason to use more than one die.

[@MemphiStig]

I've played numerous games, all with different dice mechanics, like D&D, RoleMaster, Warhammer FRP, and BattleTech, and in each case the rules were designed with the dice in mind. (Tho, tbf, a lot of D&D's early rules were made specifically to utilize these new dice they had found.) Consequently, each of the games has a different feel to it when it comes to the dice, and they often have different rules or rule parameters because of the ways they use those dice. But that's where you get all the flavor, taking advantage of what the dice you use have to offer. And not to get into it, but I have the opposite opinion on modifiers as that creator -- smaller is better -- but that's a totally different tldr. Good video.

[@arlekinos93]

It's a matter of consistency. A bell curve simply gives much more gravity to results close to the middle of the spread. It's the same reason that encounter reactions and many other rolls use 2d6 in B/X and other oldschool dnd versions.

[@ivanmike1968]

@arlekinos93 However, in a binary pass and fail die roll the bell curve doesn’t matter. What matters is the percentage of time you succeeded or fail. That’s it. The results are In the range of success or in the range of failure. The actual numbers don’t matter. if the target number on a D20 is 11 it doesn’t matter if you roll at 11 or 12 13 17, 19, 20 they’re all the same. if the target number on 2d6 is a seven it doesn’t matter if you roll an 8 9 or 12 they are all equivalent

[@willmendoza8498]

Very interesting. I actually had a long game design chat with a friend of mine years ago, who was working for one of the larger RPG companies at time. They were working on a new system and were using focus groups. What they found was that a 66% chance is actually the sweet spot. Players felt like their characters were competent, but that the odds of failure were still exciting, and GMs felt similarly. Before he revealed that, he asked me to guess what the percentage was, and I guessed 75%. So, I can see where this person came up with that number. But in my buddy's testing actually showed that a 75% benchmark for competent characters doing something appropriate to their power level felt unsatisfying and trivially easy. A variety of difficulties with 66 as the benchmark made them much happier overall. Not really surprising when I thought about it, but it was a cool moment of learning how the sausage is made, and why.

[@MemphiStig]

Basically, the golden ratio.

[@nicholastaylor8613]

Vancian magic is a diceless system within D&D, and it works just fine. What dice system (2d6, 1d20, dice pool, dice less, etc), depends on what you want, but you can mix and match as needed.

[@Nolinquisitor]

My conclusion is that person doesn’t want a game.

[@MemphiStig]

Well, there are plenty of games that don't rely primarily or at all on dice, and they are legitimately rpg's, so they could play a diceless game. But it sounds like that person doesn't understand what dice are for, which is uncertainty, randomness, the possibility of unpredictable failure or success. It would make as much sense to say you want to drive your car around, but you don't want to turn the engine on because you don't want to use up the fuel. Okay, then. Get out and push. Or walk. Or get a horse. Also, I think I know who this is, don't remember the name tho, and they are a bit misguided.

[@QuestingGM]

And I was so excited thinking this is going to be a video of what different dice mechanics say about what the game wants you to think about rolling dice. But this ain't a video about that.

[@ivanmike1968]

It’s not! But that would be a good video

[@YukonJack88]

Diceless Resolution mechanic.... Insta Qualification when the Situation is: ...... Seems to me that this dynamic is in effect at all times, regardless. The Gm decides so much straight up that could be randomly rolled up. Is this not a matter of degree, then? This designer in question, is mulling over how far to take this, Narrative cut to the chase, during the session? The perceptual aspect..... hmmm How much of our gaming situations are or flirt with the implausible? Example: Climbing Checks, I've rock climbed extensively and can tell you that 80-90% of rock is inaccessible to most RPG assessment attempts. Even climbs with big jugs to hang off of, are very lethal for several reasons. (hint you have to survive hundreds of hours climbing lethal rock, to be able to climb lethal rock faces, without modern gear.) As a Gm I could brutally Dicelessly resolve these in short order.... lol And pull perception back down to reality....but how fun would that be...for the barbarian thief? One aspect that dice rolling does is reconcile, all the fiddly factors that would/could and potentially have to be navigated with inspired action.... that are not discussed at the table necessarily.

[@chameleondream]

It would be nice to see the video you're talking about. I think I know what they're saying. A +1 is different for a 1d20 than a 2d6, but I'm not totally sure.

[@Hushashabega]

Seems the original video was isolating the dice mechanic without considering the system of modifiers and target numbers, while all three, together, determine the contours of probability. I do think there is validity in considering the dice alone, not isolated from the mods and DCs, but within the context of them as constants as a possible "quick and dirty" change to achieve a desired result. One should be conscious though that that is what they're doing (taking a short-cut) and realize that a more comprehensive overhaul is also an option and might even be necessary depending on one's goals.

[@epone3488]

Personally Id say lack of maths. but thats me. I love OD&D/BX/AD&D's llack of skill system for this type of thing. Far too many times people go to the dice when they dont have to.

[@gablott]

Dr. Who 2nd Edition has a great system of Story Points (meta currency) that can accomplish all sorts of effects, giving a lot of agency to the player when things need to happen or not.

[@SteveSwannJr]

Mausritter: "Dice are dangerous. Clever plans don't need to roll." I agree with you. I don't think the dice system matters. If the game master things to plan should succeed, no roll is needed.

[@samuelbroad11]

always enjoyed the Fortress America use of dice too, just from a boardgame perspective. DC20 with it's additional gradient of +5 to the d20 check affecting base damage is a great addition . But at the end of the day, d12 is the most beautiful die.

[@pinoquiu]

I saw that exact video, and my interpretation of the video was a little different: he didn't want to remove randomness from the game, but to enhance the impact that the character's abilities, represented by the modifier, had on the final result of the roll.

[@ivanmike1968]

In the series itself, he said over and over again that he wanted to remove randomness or the impact of randomness on the game