A search for an optimal resolution mechanic

[PhoneLobster]

Right, so when someone says "roll 1d20", I'm picking through my dice pile for a twenty-sided die

You use dice other than d20s?

But in all seriousness. This is the base mechanic. The most important mechanic in the game. You have d20s for your d20 mechanic just like you have d6s for your d6 based mechanic. Anything extra on the table is just someone piling on bullshit. You might as well demand chips bowls, soft drink bottles and candy wrappers for the 1d20 mechanic example but not the other one.

We don't get to say "other dice are in the way" without applying to BOTH compared scenarios because if you want to use the "but other mechanics with differing dice!" claim it is unfortunately in no way exclusive nor required by either base mechanic.. And THAT's a wash or worse for dice pools since complexity multiplies all worsening factors. If we, needlessly, throw other dice types onto the table for both mechanics (the ONLY actual fair and accurate way to consider the addition of the factor) finding 7d6 on sudden demand is fairly clearly multiplying the "other types of dice in the way" issue around about seven times (sort of) more than the 1d20.

Just as WITHOUT other dice in the way it is simpler for both than the other dice in the way scenario... but still (sort of) seven times the cost of that simpler easier counting and retrieval of dice in comparison for the 7d6 dice pool call...

Now if you want to specifically discus the advantages and disadvantages of deciding if we ARE in practice MIXING your dice mechanics and die types, I mean that's another thing. But if you actually want that shit then yeah, elaborate variable dice pools pretty clearly make it more costly to consider. Your point was?

[Red_Rob]

You only need to be (less than) 10 seconds longer on average to lose 15 minutes per 100 rolls.

This is your argument? IF the additional time is 10 seconds per roll(!), which all the data people have put forward suggests is way, way overestimating, it only adds 15 minutes of time over 100 rolls? Who the fuck cares? 100 rolls is like a 6 hour session. Who notices 15 minutes spread over 6 hours?

If it was a better mechanic I would willingly spend the extra time. After all, we choose to spend enormous amounts of extra time on any mechanics at all because we believe it is a better resolution method than the alternative, MTP. But it isn't. And that's the major strike against it.

I can't believe an argument has gone on for pages, not over whether a mechanic is bad, but how specifically it's bad. Welcome to the fucking Den eh?

[PhoneLobster]

This is your argument? IF the additional time is 10 seconds per roll(!), which all the data people have put forward suggests is way, way overestimating

We don't HAVE any actual honest or practical data.

it only adds 15 minutes of time over 100 rolls? Who the fuck cares? 100 rolls is like a 6 hour session.

Actually I estimated 100 rolls as around about a 3 hour session based on a recent gaming night, but it was action packed and dice rolls per session are pretty variable on a lot of fronts.

But the important thing here is even few seconds are a measurable time cost spent on ??? Well Frank and others have already stated that Silhouette spends it's complexity in order to be... what they regard as INSANELY STUPID in the results it generates.

Now in the mean time you can spend that complexity on OTHER THINGS that bring more to the game.

If it's even 1-4 extra seconds a roll that seriously translates to an interesting new minor mechanic like morale checks or something INSTEAD of... an insanely stupid non-linear base mechanic for no reason.

If it's 5+ seconds that's the difference between seriously huge stuff like having soak rolls after to hit rolls... or not.

Now if you are so insanely stupid you don't understand how 15 minutes (over three OR six hours) adds up over years of gaming to MOUNTAINS of wasted time that COULD have been spent on better additional mechanics, or just eating more potato chips, I don't think you have the numeracy to even be IN a debate about resolution mechanics.

I mean it's amazing I have to even put K's "more math's isn't fun" comment in any more complex terms but this entire complexity and time cost thing is exactly that. Only you CAN measure it, well, you COULD if anyone had made a remotely honest attempt yet...

[wotmaniac]

Now if you are so insanely stupid you don't understand how 15 minutes (over three OR six hours) adds up over years of gaming to MOUNTAINS of wasted time that COULD have been spent on better additional mechanics, or just eating more potato chips, I don't think you have the numeracy to even be IN a debate about resolution mechanics.

Alright, this has got to be one of the biggest nothing-arguments that I've seen in a while.
If +/- 15 minutes a week is going to have a noticeable impact on the quality of your life, then you seriously need to be locked away in a padded room. It's not like you can take those minutes and save them up in your "time piggy bank". Your talking about discrete and separate/unrelated instances of fractions-of-a-second, that take place in the midst of recreational activity -- it's completely meaningless, and has absolutely no noticeable impact on anything.

[Username17]

Stop playing into Phone Lobster's bullshit. Rolling a couple d6, taking the biggest one, and adding one is fucking fast. It's faster than Rock Paper Scissors. It's faster than d20. I think the only mechanic that is actually faster is flipping over the top card of a deck. And if you had to actually do something with that card, Silhouette would still be faster.

Silhouette is the second fastest fucking resolution mechanic I have ever seen someone suggest seriously for a game with actual numbers. If Phone Lobster actually gave a fuck about resolution times to the fucking second, he would be butt humping Silhouette, or WEG d6, or some other d6-based ruleslite system. But he's not, because he is a disingenuous twat.

He is advocating rolling a fucking near-sphere and then adding a column of three or four one or two digit numbers and then comparing it to a two digit TN. That is virtually by definition in the fucking middle of time expenditures of common mechanics. There are advantages to d20, but especially speedy resolution is not on that list. It is neither super duper fast like "Hi-Lo", nor is it gratuitously slow like Framewerk. It's just a simple, workable, medium-speed resolution mechanic. That he won't shut the fuck up about how supposedly slow d6-based ruleslites are means that he is fucking lying or he's fucking stupid.

-Username17

[erik]

Quasi-related digression: I recall in college my friends thought it was freaky that they could roll 4d6 and I could sum them faster than they could cover them up. So I imagine that I would not have any time related difficulties with Silhouette.

[echoVanguard]

You guys really need to produce your own data if you're going to make assertions like these.

If Phone Lobster actually gave a fuck about resolution times to the fucking second, he would be butt humping Silhouette, or WEG d6, or some other d6-based ruleslite system.

Remember that WEG d6 involves summing multiple dice, adding additional flat modifiers, then determining not only success or failure but also determining margin of success or failure numerically. It's almost exactly the same resolution mechanic as d20, but you have an extra step of having to sum multiple dice, which is an O(n) complexity operation. This is a problem that holds true for almost any d6-based system, and one of the things that consistently produces frustration for dicepool systems. My gaming group found Shadowrun 4E to be almost unplayably slow before we started using an automated dicebot which took an input of NumDice and outputted NumHits, as well as automatically reporting glitches, critical glitches, and additional hits from Edge.

I love SWd6. It is one of the smoothest, most streamlined, and most fun tabletop RPGs I have ever played. But to imply that its resolution mechanic is intrinsically faster than d20 is provably false.

We don't HAVE any actual honest or practical data.

Then produce some.

echo

[nikita]

My own house system uses following:

1) Character test
2D6 + Attribute + skill rating versus target number

Attribute number is -3 to +3 with vast majority of characters having their stats between -1 to +1
Skill rating is 0 to 4 with most inexperienced having 0, professional having 2 and veteran with 3.

Target numbers are 6 (easy), 8 (medium), 10 (hard) and 12 (very hard)

2) Opposed test:
Everyone rolls 2D6 + Attribute + skill rating and highest result wins.

I've so far played about 8 months with this system and it seems to be reasonably fast.

[wotmaniac]

Stop playing into Phone Lobster's bullshit.

Meh.
My point was that, regardless of whether or not there is actually any factual evidence to his claim (which we've all been shown that there isn't), that his entire premise is completely pointless and meaningless. Seriously, go back and read what he just said -- he's literally claiming that .2 seconds is fucking life-changing (again, whether or not that .2 seconds actually exists is meaningless at this point). How the hell do you even attempt to engage with that level of idiocy?

[OgreBattle]

I like what warhammer fantasy battle/40k does

Roll a d6 over a target number. Sometimes you roll a bunch to whittle away at a bunch of points to reduce to zero. I was disappointed DH and WHFRP don't use this system.

It seems to me to be very easy to grasp and with enough gradients, yet each gradient is distinctly memorable (2+ terminator, 3+ power armor, 4+ carapace, 5+ mesh, 6+ ork). If there's something horrrrribly unplayably super flawed about this system though I'm not terribly aware of it.

It's the starting point for a resolution mechanic I have in mind that's basically rolling 2d6 with each D6 to beat a target number. A 'critical success' is rolling a six and a hit. This gives you four possible results with each roll, which is enough of a gradient for me (normal(1), good(2), bonus(crit))

[PhoneLobster]

Remember that WEG d6 involves ...

Yeah, other things, but unfortunately Frank has already officially reduced Silhouette to "only ever 3d6, take highest add 1"... which is not the mechanic as actually described at all, wotc is off mistaking actual seconds fo 0.2 seconds in his last post and denying that it is even possible to waste time. And then...

an O(n) complexity operation.

...Good luck going with the formal angle, but with them not actually accepting the mechanic works as described and making up their own shorter mechanic instead actively changing numbers someone was talking about by a degree of ten and denying that they even give a shit about entirely wasting 15 minutes per game anyway?

I don't think rolling out the formal notation will make any positive difference.

This is pure tribal denial.

[RadiantPhoenix]

From the information on the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Gear ... _RPG_Rules

The task resolution and tests involve rolling a number of 6-sided dice, taking the highest result, adding in modifiers for attributes and/or situation, and then comparing it to a set threshold number. If the result is higher than the threshold the test is a success; if it is lower the test is a failure. The margin by which the test succeeded (Margin of Success, MoS) or failed (Margin of Failure, MoF) helps to determine the final outcome. Characters may suffer penalty-inflicting wounds rather than depleting a set number of health points.

Here's what this looks like to me:

• Roll nd6
• Find the highest number
• Add a number to that number
• Compare it to a DC

[...You Lost Me]

You use dice other than d20s?

Um, yes (read: are you stupid?)? My warblade generally has 1d8, 2d6, 1d12, and 1d20 on hand for all his rolls. Because I place things and forget about them, I usually carry around double the dice I need. So on my turn, I'm looking around for a d20 that looks an awful lot like a d12 and is in competition with several other dice.

When I'm running any sort of dicepool, I'm getting however many d6's are on the table, because those are the only dice on the table. I could completely lose 2 dice and still function, because I have more than all the dice I need on the table. Sure, if d10s and shit were in the game, this would be a negative. But there aren't any d10s in this game. So it's not. Herp derp.

And if you think any sort of damage or healing roll is "just piling bullshit on the table", then you really are a bit behind the times. Either that or this was a reading comprehension fail again, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

[PhoneLobster]

From the information on the wikipedia article...
Here's what this looks like to me. ...

The wikipedia article seemed a bit of a vague gloss over with poor coverage of the mechanics when I went and looked, way back when Souran first gave us THIS remarkably silly description...

Silhouette: dice pool of d6 plus a static modifer, take the higest die, additional dice above a theshold number add a fixed (usually 1) value to the result, check against a target number.

Which while admittedly a total cluster fuck SEEMS to indicate it is (in one step) an honest to god dice pool mechanic where you at one stage measure individual dice successes and failures against some other threshold which give you an incremental bonus of +1 (or sometimes some other numbers?) each. In ADDITION to the steps you deciphered (the bonuses for additional die above threshold SEEM to be a separate bonus to the "Static Modifier").

And the initial example seems to indicate the same...

...Your result is 6 (highest rolled) +1 (additional 6 rolled) +2 for a grand total of a 9.

Now if that's not the case I wouldn't be surprised. My initial post on this was largely complaining how fucking bad that description was. But then again, I've seen RPG core mechanics worse than this so I wouldn't be surprised (and am assuming) souran's description is accurate (ish). Since he seems to have actually read/played this and I can only take him at his (poorly chosen) words.

And if indeed the dice pool step does not happen (with a sometimes variable bonus per success) then one of THE most complex steps, and the steps which multiplies THE WORST with additional d6s in the pool, is gone. And the mechanic WILL be measurably faster and less complex, especially at high ends of D6 pool sizes.

Ediiiiit!: Oh and then there was the time Souran stopped back in, failed to even attempt to fucking clarify ANYTHING but also added THIS exciting little gem...

Rerolls are used generously and lots of outlier cases are discussed in the rules along with MULTIPLE ways of treating them.

So there are also occasional reroll steps (partial? Entire? For specific steps or the whole routine?) and ALSO other "outlier" er... stuff with multiple optional rules to cover them?

Yes that's right. He came back in telling us how this is all awesome and so easy you can count it on your fingers and actually made his description LESS clear and the mechanics MORE complex.

I mean if he just answered any of the god damn questions at all. Buuut... that's not how the gaming den rolls anymore.


PS some other guy...

My warblade

For a summary of my entire post you failed SO hard on. Your inability to differentiate discussion of A flat single dice mechanic from A 1d20 based mechanic from the d20 3.x edition D&D system as a whole is... kinda sad.

I mean you are REPEATEDLY jumping in like an eager toddler going "Ahahahahaha but when I play D&D with mah warblades and mah d8s!" when no one is talking about that but you. Your inability or refusal to understand the concept of even comparing or discussing individual mechanics is FRIGHTENINGLY juvenile, or in short...

(read: are you stupid?)

[...You Lost Me]

Wait, hold on, guys, I want to know how PL plays every single character in D&D without using anything but d20s. I really want to hear it.

All right, PL, we're listening. Or was that another strawman? "NO SOME PEOPLE DON'T ROLL THOSE DICE SO THEY ARE NOT DICE SO IT DOESN'T COUNT NOT DICE NOT DICE YOU ARE SO DUMB NOT DICE LALALALALALA" is a very weak argument.

[Koumei]

It can totally be done: any character generation method that doesn't involve rolling dice (ie most of them), any HP gain that doesn't involve rolling dice (more and more people just say "take the average" these days), and a character who doesn't use damaging effects but just uses SoDs (this would also be a character who doesn't make attack rolls, basically - a Wizard or particularly a Psion could do it, and they'd rarely roll any dice at all, only Skill checks, Initiative and Saving Throws of their own, so perfect for people who believe in cursed dice/players).

I'm not saying that's what he does - I don't know - but it's totally possible.

[...You Lost Me]

I think we have articles in the Tomes about players "leaving the table to go play smash brothers" in those cases. If that's really exclusively how PL plays, I don't know why he's not playing a video game.

[PhoneLobster]

Wait, hold on, guys, I want to know how PL plays every single character in D&D without using anything but d20s. I really want to hear it.

Still waiting for you to catch on...

Your inability to differentiate discussion of A flat single dice mechanic from A 1d20 based mechanic from the d20 3.x edition D&D system as a whole is... kinda sad.

...how CAN anyone be as slow on the uptake as you?

[Stubbazubba]

Crafty Games' new Mistborn Adventure Game uses a combination of silhouette and dicepool; your attributes (between 2-6) or standings (between 2-10) tell you how many d6 you roll, your highest set 1-5 is your result, while each 6, called a Nudge, adds 1 to result, or a variety of other things (3 6's let's you take another action, 2 lets you inflict certain effects, etc.). Traits and circumstance modifiers only add or decrease the number of dice rolled. Max dice rolled is 10, anything you have above that is an automatic Nudge. They include a probability chart in the book, which is nice.

This means that unlike Silhouette, there's always a chance to fail (if you roll no sets from 1-5).

[virgil]

This is your argument? IF the additional time is 10 seconds per roll(!), which all the data people have put forward suggests is way, way overestimating

We don't HAVE any actual honest or practical data.

Therefore your assertion must obviously be correct/superior than the others'? It's already been established that the time difference between the two is negligible-to-imperceptible, and there are MUCH higher priorities in the interest of speeding gameplay than whether you use Nd6(high)+X vs 1d20+Y.

[PhoneLobster]

Again...

Nd6(high)+X

Is NOT the silhouette mechanic as described on this thread. You are missing a very large step and an extra variable input!

Edit: oh, and "rerolls" and... other... things...

[virgil]

As opposed to d20's own variable critical threats, greater volume of situation modifiers, rerolls, etc?

[PhoneLobster]

As opposed to d20's own variable critical threats, greater volume of situation modifiers, rerolls, etc?

Additional mechanics are additional the step I am mentioning is something people KEEP MISSING in the BASE MECHANIC of Silhoutte.

There IS (according to Souran) a dice pool step AFTER the find the highest step, performed on the original ND6 with the highest result removed. This compares each dice against... a number (still not clarified, possibly just 6) and each success adds X to the result where X is "sometimes 1" and as such another variable input. AFTER this you then go on to add the "static modifier" to the total.

You want to talk extra stuff like including a Critical Threat system? Well apparently Sillhoute has all sorts of crazy margin of success/failure, rerolls of a dice pool, holy crap, "other things with multiple optional ways of treating them" and all sorts of crap which Souran brought up INSTEAD of clarifying a single thing about the base mechanic. But the additional dice pool step is pure base mechanic.

And like all dice pools it's the worst bit.

[Lokathor]

So... that thing with the piles of d6s +X and you pick the highest, +1 for each 6 left over after picking the highest...

Would it work at all well with d20s? (or d12, or d10, etc) It seems like adding more sides to the type of dice rolled would keep numbers in the "average" range a lot, with occasional chances of rather low rolls and a very very small chance of getting the extra high rolls.

[...You Lost Me]

Jeez, PL, you really did give up. It's all "hurr durr you don't get it 'cause your dumb" now.

Ooh, and excellent goalposting with the rerolls. You're really doing well.