The Gaming Den

PoliteNewb wrote:Murtak I hope I didn't misrepresent you.

You didn't - that is exactly what I meant.

All these complex discussions aside, I'd be very interested to know what this rules lite system would look like, PhoneLobster. Or anybody else that fancies a go, for that matter. I've been searching for a rules lite system for a game I'm going to run set in the thirties, and it's occured to me that a homebrew system might be the way to go. I'd love to see what you people think is a good rules lite system!

Sajber wrote:All these complex discussions aside, I'd be very interested to know what this rules lite system would look like, PhoneLobster. Or anybody else that fancies a go, for that matter. I've been searching for a rules lite system for a game I'm going to run set in the thirties, and it's occured to me that a homebrew system might be the way to go. I'd love to see what you people think is a good rules lite system!

Spirit of the Century has a lot of fans and is already set in the twenties or thirties.

-Username17

Frank is really gonna continue to run with this "there are more +3's in 3-18 than there are in 1-20" isn't he?

I thought "Horses aren't allowed inside!" was his height of crazy.

Apparently not.

PhoneLobster wrote:You don't get to add +30% more often.

Given that Frank's entire arguement is that the +X bonus which is initially 30% will automatically scale down to less than 30% you're being an ass by representing his arguement that way.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:You don't get to add +30% more often.

Given that Frank's entire arguement is that the +X bonus which is initially 30% will automatically scale down to less than 30% you're being an ass by representing his arguement that way.

Really so what was with all those shenanigans with the allocating a +8 to the d20 and a +4 to the 3d6 and calling it the same thing?

And then why did he suddenly start with the "DPS" thing where he started talking about the proportional change in bonuses in the d20 example as if it were directly comparable to the plain odds of success on the 3d6 roll?

These are fundamentally intellectually bankrupt con jobs he is pulling here. All very much, "2+2=4, and therefore, 57"

You might want to read this.

virgileso wrote:

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:...liberal arts majors who took Math for Dummies 101 for their gen-ed requirement. Since those are the people who would most be attracted to rules-lite systems, 3d6 is probably a bad idea for those games.

Didn't oWoD have a similar concern in its resolution system, obtuse probability? When the system can't be fully realized by everyone, it's easier for everyone to go Magic Tea Party while not caring about optimization.

But if the point is to encourage people to MTP, why even have written rules?

Everything I know about oWoD (or any WoD, for that matter) comes from my cousin and stuff I read on the Internet, but I gather it had more problems than that. For example, the fact that the designers never ran their numbers, thus leading to crazy counterintuitive probabilities (like your chance of botching going up right along with your chance of success when you add another die to your pool). The ease with which dice pools can produce counterintuitive results is one reason you don't want to use them in a rules-lite game. After all, the GM, at minimum, must know exactly what's going on with the system, and obtuse probabilities get in his way, too.

That's another thing. When there is the ability for optimization, anti-munchkins will avoid doing it, no matter how easy it is for them. When the pro-optimizer can't master the system, he's on about the same playing field even after trying. Having that kind of set-up is easier to write-up and design than trying to delicately balance & playtest slight numerical tweaks.

The problem is that people who will try to shoot themselves in the foot are rare, and somebody will always be able to master the system. You're basically asking for a situation where, if somebody like Frank sits down at the table, runs the probabilities in his head, and optmizes to the best of his ability, everybody else is screwed and unable to comprehend how to unscrew themselves. Designing a system to cater to the most pathologically stupid people is going to be a losing endeavor.

Murtak wrote:You might want to read this.

Murtak, don't be a fucking idiot and refer me back to posts I have most certainly already read in this very same fucking thread.

Polite Newb recited you position, again, for no reason, and then made a rather key error.

He state you wanted to determine bonuses based on average values but you have shunned actual average values at every turn to try and back your argument. Because when you use an actual average value, your con artist equations break.

I think we're running into the conflicting meanings of "average" here. Some people are probably using average to mean "the median of the bell curve."

OK, so now Frank and Murtak have wandered off to apply bad math and logical non sequiturs to other pressing issues like the “aWoD”.

I can continue on with the actual topic. So this is the replacement “Rules Lite” system for the example game. I don't actually endorse this replacement I'm creating here, generally I'd rather not run such a very rules lite game as an entire system. But most of the principles it should represent are what I would regard as appropriate for whatever mechanics fill in the gaps of a more formal game.

The Replacement Game

What's in and what's out?
Some of the example system's apparent goals and quirks are staying in an attempt to reconcile them to better principles, others are going or changing because I can't be having with them. So here's a list of stuff from the example that gets to stay, or not...

In
Single arbitrary skill check as core (and only) mechanic.

Arbitrary rest periods/refresh events to restore “limited” resources and restore status effects.

Limited boosting resource of some kind. Can't hurt.

Degrees of success and failure.

Ongoing status effects.

Vague negotiable character attributes.

Out
Insane dice pools. These are just plain wrong in ANY table top RPG mechanic, they were worse in the example, they have to go.

Large numbers of minimum attributes. These are out for streamlining. Minimum attribute/bonus is now a default assumption and not listed on your sheet.

Shared attribute titles. Relevance is always by specific arbitrary negotiation anyway. We don't need to know that two characters have differing “Stamina” scores, instead we have fun times where one has “Will Not Die 3” and another has “Tireless Strength 2”.

Meaningless attribute categories. Attribute categories will mean something. Those that don't are gone or changed.

Swapping tiny increments in chance of success for massive bonuses to degree of success. I can see this working, especially in a more formal system. But I don't think it is A) Worth it in an arbitrary system where characters could just try something harder with a bigger effect anyway B) Fitting well with the idea that it was supposed to be heroic pulp action where PCs live and win on a regular basis.

The New Basic Mechanic
The new mechanic is this.

The character declares their action. The GM determines the difficulty.

The GM may declare an action as so hard it cannot possibly succeed (making it an automatic failure). But they should probably tell this to a player and give them a chance to attempt some other action instead, if at all possible.

The GM may declare an action to be so easy it cannot possibly fail (so it automatically succeeds).

Otherwise the GM declares an action to be of some arbitrary difficulty they feel is appropriate. And give it a Target Number (TN).

To succeed in the action a character must roll a 1d10 (it's a quicky style game with minimal to no character advancement so a smallish dice is appropriate) and equal or exceed the TN. If they do so then the action is successful. If they roll under it fails.

Degrees of Success
A roll of exactly equal to the TN will result in a success, but with an unforeseen negative complication of some form. The original intended action DOES still succeed, but something else bad happens as a result.

The GM is advised that this bad thing should as much as possible not negate the actual action itself, or be worse than if the action had been a failure.

If a roll results in a number that exceeds the TN by 3 points or more then the action is a “Smashing Success”. A “Smashing Success” (called that for Biggles adventure fiction theme the setting apparently has) results in the action being successful AND having some additional unforeseen or further positive complication. The action succeeds really well providing more extreme or entirely tangential benefits in some way.

If a roll results in a number that exceeds the TN by 5 points or more then the action is a “Super Smashing Success”. Which is just like a “Smashing Success” only twice as good or with twice as many tangential benefits.

However if a roll fails by 3 points or more it is “Jolly Bad Luck” and not only fails, but also causes some minor additional misfortune as a negative complication.

And if a roll fails by 5 points or more it is “Extra Jolly Bad Luck”, which is a negative complication twice as bad as “Jolly Bad Luck”, or causes twice as many minor additional misfortunes as “Jolly Bad Luck”.

Bonuses and Attributes
The GM should include as complete a consideration of all circumstantial factors they can think of into their arbitrary TN selection.

However certain factors, specifically the use of available resources like items, weapons, furniture and props, and the application of a character's special unique skills are accounted for as modifiers.

Each individual modifier has a value between 1 and 3. This value modifies the GM's declared TN for an action by reducing it by the value of the modifier.

Before rolling for the success of an action a player may negotiate with the GM to determine how many modifiers and which ones might apply to that action. For further advice see the “GM Advice” section. But as a general rule between 1 modifier at the least and 4 modifiers at most is acceptable. Making it easy for a player to negotiate 2 modifiers to most rolls (even 2 big ones) would be a good guideline for complexity etc...

Dumb Luck Points[/i]
Every heroic PC character, and certain major named villian NPCs selected arbitrarily by the GM, has a resource called “Dumb Luck Points”.

Each such character has a pool of 5 Dumb Luck Points.

After rolling to determine the success of an action the player or GM in control of the character may spend any amount of Dumb Luck Points to modify the result. This not only changes whether the action succeeds or fails it can change the additional degree of success or failure results.

The GM should generally also allow these points to be spent after (or at least during) negotiating or declaring the nature of additional complications from degree of success results (or potential ones if the player is considering modifying to gain one).

Dumb Luck is restored by “Refresh” events.

You may only spend Dumb Luck Points on your OWN action. You may not spend dumb luck points on the actions of others.

TNs lower than 1 or greater than 10
Because of the existence of Dumb Luck Points and bonus Modifiers to TN it is possible for a some characters in some circumstances to attempt actions with TN's in excess of the range a character without such bonuses could reach.

As such a GM can technically declare a TN of 11+. Though generally this is not recommended unless renegotiating an action the GM had originally declared impossible when a player presents a case to apply some attribute, or suggests they might spend some dumb luck on the roll.

Note if, even after applying attribute modifiers, the TN is still greater than 10 but is within range IF the character spends Dumb Luck Points they first roll against the TN and see their dice result BEFORE deciding to add those Dumb Luck Points to make the action possible.

In addition there are (potentially though it is an edge case) situations where one might need to determine “degree of success” for an action that automatically succeeds. In which case the GM may declare a TN of 0 or lower and require a roll.

Character Attributes
Characters have two types of attributes on their character sheet.

One type of attribute is the “Skill”. A “Skill” is an attribute that is some inherent ability or bonus the character has. This ranges in value from 2-3. In addition a player might negotiate some implied skill from their character's background fluff or as “tangentially related” to one of their 2 or 3 bonus skills, in which case the implied skill has a default value of 1.

The other type of attribute is an “Item”. Item's range in value from 0-3. 0 Items are the most common items in the world. 0 items don't provide any bonus but may somehow allow an action that you couldn't otherwise attempt (like firing a gun) or allow the application of an item related skill (like “Gunfighter 2”). After that good quality items provide a bonus of 1. Signature character items like a “Lucky Pistol” provide a bonus of 2. And really amazing rare super items like major quest objectives might provide a bonus of 3.
A “Standard” or starting character has...
A Background (from which exploitive players are encouraged to try milk the odd +1 skill modifier)
3x “Skill” attributes at a value of 2 each. Representing their heroic abilities.
1x “Skill” attribute at a value of 3. Representing their most amazing signature ability.
3x “Item” attributes at a value of 1 each. Representing their best pieces of kit.
1x “Item” attribute at a value of 2. Representing their favourite signature item.
?x “Item” attributes at a value of 0. Representing non specific crap they are carrying like “camping gear” etc...
(This list is basically legacy structure from the example system, it really doesn't matter how you set this bit up)

Attributes are really vague things, like “Kung Fu 3” or “Very British 2” or “Lucky All Purpose Swiss Army Knife 1”. Their impact entirely relies on the imagination of the players and the GM and their ability to negotiate those attributes into relevant and interesting actions.

I'd present some sort of long list of sample attribute names but since their value is so arbitrary it is hardly necessary, and since the example game's genre was a fairly vague Biggles/Indiana Jones/Big Trouble In Little China/Three Stooges thing I don't entirely know what would be thematically appropriate.

Character advancement, attribute advancement, the acquisition of items... can all be entirely arbitrary for all I care. When every bonus is negotiable it doesn't REALLY matter too much what the advancement scheme involved is.

Damage, Death, and Status Effects
It is OK for a successful action to knock out, cripple, defeat or even remove an opposing character or even multiple opposing characters. The GM should reflect any difficulty involved in doing so (compared to lesser results) in the TN they select for the action. And they should offer characters the option to attempt actions with lesser effects on success, like say just knocking a character temporarily off their feet, with easier TNs.

Which brings us to “Status Effects”.

Damage is a status effect. Characters can have “Status Effects” such as “Tired”, “Injured”, “Unconcsious”, “Dead”, “Crippled Hand” or even useless crap like “Love Sick” or “Drunk”.

Status effects have no specific value. Some may simply prevent you from taking certain actions (like how “Dead” prevents you from holding down a real full time job in normal human society). But the exact effect of many in that regards, such as say “Crippled Hand” is pretty much entirely arbitrary.

Mostly status effects are simply an additional guideline used by the GM in selecting TNs for your character. So for instance if you are “Tired” the GM should give you higher TNs for your character whenever you attempt actions he thinks it might apply some disadvantage to.

Rest, Healing, and the Refresh action
A character recovers their Dumb Luck Points by experiencing a “Refresh” event. This is a rest like action or other reviving effect which is basically entirely arbitrary in nature and up to the GM. It will typically happen in between rather than during action “scenes”.

Status effects inflicted as a result of positive or negative “complications” should not be especially severe in comparison to the basic success (unless the result of “extreme” complications like “Extra Jolly Bad Luck”). Though a negative complication on a failure to avoid an injury, or a positive complication on a success to deal one could make that injury effect “worse” than it otherwise would have been, rather than doing “something else”.

It is recommended that GMs provide Dumb Luck Point refreshing events often enough that characters do not have to do completely without Dumb Luck points for more than one entire encounter at most.

When experiencing a “Refresh” characters may also heal various status effects. Indeed only special extra nasty status effects like “death” or “sever limb” or other terrible things like that don't heal simply as a result of experiencing a refresh event. Such extra terrible status effects can be healed only by other, also entirely arbitrary, powers or events, like the special skills of other characters or arbitrary GM rulings (ie “Yes you will be healed from the dead if the others immerse you in the magic spring of life”)

Some other status effects are so very minor they may even heal simply as a result of taking a successful action in combat. But effects like that (ie “Knocked Over”) probably don't even warrant being recorded as an ongoing status effect as all, and should just be considered by the GM as a temporary circumstantial modifier to TNs.

NPCs and actions
NPCs do NOT have actions like normal PC characters do. (This is basically legacy from the example system, as far as I could follow, in it's context it isn't a bad idea but might not be appropriate in alternate systems).

In this system the outcome of EVERY action is a roll made by a PC character.

So if a PC shoots at an NPC the PC makes a roll to determine if he hits the NPC.

And if an NPC shoots at a PC then the PC makes a roll to determine if he is hit BY the NPC.

If both the PC and the NPC are trying to shoot each other at the same time then the PC rolls and if they succeed they shoot their target, and if they fail they get shot.

This allows a lot of steam lining of combat scenes and lets the GM represent more powerful individual opponents, or larger number of opponents by simply changing the arbitrary TN of an action to effect, avoid, or avoid and effect them.

Negating Actions NPC/Arbitrary actions
Since NPC actions (and other things like environmental effects, traps, etc...) happen without the NPC or effect making a roll it is important that the GM at least give the PCs some opportunity to negotiate a roll and some modifiers of some kind to take a “reactive” type action to negate, avoid or reduce the effects of NPC actions or other arbitrary effects.

Even if the PC is caught by surprise it is recommended SOME sort of action on there part be permitted.

PC vs PC actions
If a PC for whatever reason attempts an action that somehow negates, or competes with another PCs action (like shooting each other) then the PC who succeeds by the largest margin on their roll is the one who is successful, the other one's action is negated by the successful character's action (including any positive degree of success complications they would have had). If either or both character's simply fail their roll, then their action also fails as normal, including negative degree of success complications.

Taking Turns
When multiple PCs are active together in any time critical encounter like combat, make sure every PC gets at least an opportunity to perform an action (all of which are considered to be basically simultaneously) before starting a new “round” of actions where PCs that have already acted in the last round may go again.

Advice to the GM
Don't be afraid to simply rule some actions as automatically successful or impossible.

Do not get too attached to the coin flip, not every rolled action needs to be made against a TN of 5 or made with a TN that you know will be modified to 5. It is OK for actions to be hard or easy. Use the full range of 1-10 freely, and of course beyond that for characters skilled enough or prepared to consider spending Dumb Luck Points.

Remain open to player negotiations as to actions, circumstantial modifiers to TNs, and ways in which they can get their attributes to apply to an action so they can further modify a TN. PCs have attributes for a reason and you are expected to let them use them.

Ranges and Implications
OK so you are encouraged to let PCs apply an average of 2 attributes or so that could easily be a bonus of +5. They can spend Dumb Luck from time to time for anywhere up to +5 more.

As a result low TNs will generally only be challenging for PCs attempting actions that are somehow the most counter to their ability set. And when acting within their fields (which as adventuring heroes they should) they will find mid and even higher range difficulty actions easy. Actions ranging into the 10+ range will even be readily within their reach.

And because Dumb Luck is only spent when you KNOW how that will effect outcomes they will be further encouraged to push the upper limits of action difficulties with the knowledge that they do not NEED to spend Dumb Luck on a failure, and if a failure is somehow especially punishing (due to degree of failure effects) they can choose to compensate.

It should in general run a pretty hefty “we are good at what we do” heroic action game full of heroic “extreme action” and other junk like the vague theme of the example system sort of claimed to be.

Of course being entirely based of Arbitrary GM rulings there is a lot of that balance that remains entirely down to what TNs the GM picks and how open they are to players negotiating in applications of their attributes. But the simple d10+dumb luck vs TN-modifiers should make it pretty clear what is going on at all times. And anyway, arbitrary is very much the name of the game on this one.

System Bloat!
OK so that's a lot of text there. And about 4 to 8 times as much as whatever portion I saw of the original example. But then it DID leave quite a lot in exceedingly vague territory that needed clarifying, and this text also includes a lot of discussion beyond basic utility.

I'm moving this to the appropriate thread in an attempt to halt the thread jacking.

PhoneLobster wrote:Math is not a topic in which vagueness and misunderstanding occur Nine.

It's provably right or provably wrong. Frank and Murtak were and are, objectively, wrong in their math.

And if you can't see that then yes, it DOES mean you are, objectively, stupid.

If vagueness and misunderstanding do not occur in math, then no one would get a get less than a perfect score on a math test. People do sometimes get less than a perfect score on a math test. Therefore, vagueness and misunderstanding do occur in math.

You, for instance, expressed a lack of understanding on the last page of the thread:

PhoneLobster wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:You don't get to add +30% more often.

Given that Frank's entire arguement is that the +X bonus which is initially 30% will automatically scale down to less than 30% you're being an ass by representing his argument that way.

Really so what was with all those shenanigans with the allocating a +8 to the d20 and a +4 to the 3d6 and calling it the same thing?

And then why did he suddenly start with the "DPS" thing where he started talking about the proportional change in bonuses in the d20 example as if it were directly comparable to the plain odds of success on the 3d6 roll?

These are fundamentally intellectually bankrupt con jobs he is pulling here. All very much, "2+2=4, and therefore, 57"

You ask two questions in that post, both of which went unfortunately unanswered because the people in question had already put you on ignore.

Both of them also reveal that you simply do not understand your interlocutors' position. Until you demonstrate that you do, you have no right whatsoever to accuse people of pulling intellectually bankrupt con jobs, of being lying liars, or of being morons.

The simplest tool we learn in philosophy is restating the opposing position in a way that shows its advocates that we understand it. It is telling that, even on the last page of the thread, you were not aware that, " Frank's entire argument is that the +X bonus which is initially 30% will automatically scale down to less than 30%."

NineInchNall wrote:If vagueness and misunderstanding do not occur in math, then no one would get a get less than a perfect score on a math test.

Er. No. That's what you call WRONG.

Math, especially basic high school math, IS a field of absolutes.

Answers to maths tests are right or wrong. It's not like a creative writing or essay based test where the subjective view of the person marking the test makes a difference.

As for the rest, you are basically just being an idiot running a character attack in place of actually presenting ANY new or even rehashed argument.

You want to try to explain how a 3d6 RNG is somehow better and "deeper" than a 1d20, go give it a try on a dedicated thread. You haven't actually tried it here which is good, because it's as off topic on this thread as it was on the one you moved it from. You ass.

PhoneLobster wrote:

NineInchNall wrote:If vagueness and misunderstanding do not occur in math, then no one would get a get less than a perfect score on a math test.

Er. No. That's what you call WRONG.

Math, especially basic high school math, IS a field of absolutes.

Answers to maths tests are right or wrong. It's not like a creative writing or essay based test where the subjective view of the person marking the test makes a difference.

The students taking the test might misunderstand a particular problem. They might misunderstand a particular mathematical procedure. The teacher might write a poorly worded question because he's fresh off the boat from South Korea.

Let me be clear on this: the problems themselves have, as you say, absolutely, objectively right and wrong answers. People arrive at the wrong answers because of a lack of understanding. And one of the things that they might misunderstand is, say, the wording of a particular problem. Wording, as we know from our dealings with game rules and all the funky interpretations people have of them, are subject to, well, interpretation.

Purely mathematical language is unambiguous. That's the point of mathematical language. When we introduce English in our discussion, however, we also introduce uncertainty.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to defend the argument that some ranges of numbers are bigger than they actually are... by flat out just declaring "vague" everything you find it convenient to declare "vague"?

Up to and including math? In this specific case rather literally declaring "2+2=4" to be vague and ambiguous and full of potential variant interpretations?

I really don't think you have a place in this discussion.

Hell any time someone starts saying things about stuff they learn in philosophy they should probably take that as a hint that it has very little relevance to you know math.

Or for that matter just about anything.

I seriously don't think you're even reading what I'm writing. If it's so unambiguous, please shut me up by simply and unambiguously restating Frank's position. Because what you've written and continue to write does not match what anyone has been saying.

Frank's position was this:

A) We want a list of static bonuses that we can apply to rolls in various situations. Example: in 3.5, flanking is a +2 bonus to attack and having higher ground is a +1 bonus to attack.

B) We don't want to recalculate these bonuses every time depending on the current target number and modifiers. Example: flanking is a +2 bonus regardless of whether the target AC is 10 or 20, and regardless of whether you also have the higher ground bonus.

At this point we've simply stated overall design goals so there shouldn't be any problem.

C) The baseline target number is arbitrarily X, but we'll say 11 for ease of discussion and because people like 50% for some reason.

D) Considering an otherwise unmodified roll, we calculate the static bonus that would give us a Y% chance of meeting or exceeding the baseline target number rather than 50%. Example: Let Y% = 90%. For the d20 this is +7. For the 3d6 this is +3.

Now we apply our design goal.

E) We write the static bonus that we calculated in D) in the book's list of modifiers. Example: We write down +7 in the d20 book under "Divine Intervention", "DM Favor", and "Sexy Lingerie". We write down +3 in the 3d6 book under "Divine Intervention", "DM Favor", and "Sexy Lingerie".



Now, what happens when you have a roll to which all three of "Divine Intervention", "DM Favor", and "Sexy Lingerie" apply?

d20: You roll 1d20+21. That takes you clear off the RNG.
3d6: You roll 3d6+9. You're still on the RNG.


As far as I can tell, that's all that Frank or Murtak were saying. The key, really, is the design goals A) and B). They just want a list of static bonuses that individually have significant statistical effect on an otherwise unmodified roll, and can be combined without pushing yourself off the RNG.

I see that some of your previous posts point out that the effect on success chance will not always be the same percentage, depending on the target number and other modifiers. This is intended behavior.

If you could point out civilly at which letter this breaks down, that would be great.

For Fuck's sake: Standard Deviations, look them up.

On a curved die roll, such as 3d6, you can add one standard deviation and another standard deviation, and still be on the RNG like you do in real life. On an uncurved die roll like a d20, if you add two standard deviations, you are off the RNG.

So for example: in 3d6 land, starting at TN 11, if you get a +3 bonus you have gone up one standard deviation (50% success to 84% success). If you add another +3 bonus to that, you have gone up another standard deviation (84% success to 98% success). If you add a standard deviation to a d20 roll, that's a +7 bonus (50% to 85%), and you hit the end of the RNG before you even get half way into adding that bonus again.

OK? OK.

Some people like their RNG to generate some fucking normal statistical distributions. Which curved RNGs do, and uncurved RNGs do not do. Some people like to be able to have an RNG that is at least 2 standard deviations deep, which curved RNGs do and uncurved RNGs do not do.

-Username17

Yep. I was trying to avoid using prob-stat terminology, though, since I hated that class with a passion. Real Analysis was a lot more interesting, since set theory involves very few actual numbers.

NineInchNall wrote:Frank's position was this:

I like that you described exactly as I read it all along.

Its also hilarious because it isn't the argument Frank presents in his latest post.

You First describe the goal of being able to add a bunch of nice static bonuses to your RNG.

Then you go to crazy town.

You see if you want to add a bunch of bonuses to your RNG there are more numbers on the RNG of 1d20 than on 3d6.

You learned something in philosophy? Well I learned THIS in Discrete Mathematics. Curves ain't really all that curvy. 3d6 for example is not truly a curve it is a bunch of points that approximate a curve. Poorly.

To USE that curve in an RPG we, just like a computer, can only use it in discrete chunks represented by the points mapped by the 3d6 roll. And once again, there are less of them on a 3d6 than on a 1d20.

If your goal REALLY IS the ability to add bonuses to the roll multiple times it is simply NOT honest to say that more potential to add cumulative bonuses exists on 3d6, its just plain not true.

It is especially not true because those whole discrete points towards either extreme of the RNG become statistically insignificant and are functionally less useful for us to represent. FURTHER reducing the range of actual usable bonuses we can add to that RNG.

You DO go out of your way to once again pull the unit conversion/average failure dealio with the declaration that a +7 bonus on 1d20 is equal to a +3 bonus on a 3d6. Once again that is not the case. Notice how you add the +3 several times notice how the impact of that bonus changes each time?

An honest approach to the issue would be to calculate the value of your bonus to the 3d6 based on its average impact over the range you intend to actually use it. Since you specifically claim you want to use it over basically the entire range and several cumulative additions why the heck are you pretending you are adding a 45% value bonus each time?

More to the point why do you require the 1d20 example to add a +45% bonus each time when the 3d6 example is not required to do the same?

That is utterly dishonest.

Lets look at it in slightly more honest comparison.

Say I want to what you say you want to with 3d6 and add say something resembling +20% then +10% then +5% to a 1d20 RNG, you know what YOU CAN DO THAT! And it is easy. Once you start getting into +2.5% or +0.4% you can't but honestly you really shouldn't WANT to do that, especially the +0.4%.

And regardless on the 3d6 alternative there are only actually two discrete points at either end of the RNG that we can use to in ANY way under ANY context (the most convenient context at that) add increments of values smaller than approximately 5%.

But anyway importantly, if your system needs to model a 0.4% chance of success your system is made of ass. Because that is just NOT a practical and usable RPG mechanic.

Now lets get back to another somewhat more FAIR comparison of 1d20 and 3d6.

Lets say I want to find out the basic granularity of the system so I can determine how many bonuses of what size I can add to these discrete RNGs.

So the AVERAGE value of the smallest increment I can add on the 1d20 is 5%. So I can do that like 10 times from the usual mid point base. Well that isn't bad now is it. I can have 10 discrete points of bonus.

Now the 3d6 system, I can only about 9 discrete points of bonus from the typically selected "mid point". And they change wildly in value. I want some idea of what the value of a +1 bonus is right? But I am doing what you stated in your goals, I want a system where I add SEVERAL if not NUMEROUS bonuses to the roll. Some of those other bonuses, like your stated goals might even be bigger than +1s. So that means my +1 bonus could apply anywhere on the range depending on the other bonuses.

I'm going to say I intend to use the full RNG (god knows why, 0.4% and all) and so I determine the value of a +1 bonus, look its a 6.25% average! Oh what a difference from 5%, oh how much better a granularity. OR NOT.

Your stated goals do NOT match up with 3d6 over 1d20, they are HURT by 3d6 over 1d20. The FUNCTIONAL use of the RNG requires the addition of whole number integers to the roll, boondoggles aside there are more of those on 1d20. The ability to understand and plan at even the design phase what the value of a bonus is REQUIRES us to average the impact of the whole number bonus on the portion of the RNG we use, and you example uses basically ALL OF IT.

You simply cannot talk about a 3d6 RNG and say +3 has a +45% chance to the roll when the context of your very own example is a context in which OTHER BONUSES ARE IN PLAY.

But all this has been gone over in detail. The fact that you chose not to read it and regurgitate this innumerate puke is deeply offensive, especially when I asked you TO DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.


Frank's Latest Post
This however is a little, tiny, bit different.

Some people are fans of the Bell Curve and all that.

(by the way it is not exactly a coincidence that the book of that title is a controversial piece of trash roundly discounted by academia)

Still some people want some pretty crazy things.

But that doesn't stop 3d6 vs 1d20 from being a pretty crappy RNG mechanic for RPGs.

And while we CAN have the argument where you can say "People want ,say, an RNG where +1 is sometimes a +15% chance of success and other times a +0.4% chance", as opposed to this ridiculous business of adding pretending you have added depth because you can supposedly add +45% value modifiers multiple times (as in Nine's latest STUPID example and you original sleight of hand).

So while you can at least start to claim that I can feel pretty safe in openly saying that is a shit thing to want.

0.4% is hardly significant. Especially in comparison to the clunking great clumsy 15%. While the 15% is really poor granularity for an RNG we want to add numerous bonuses to.

"OK you get a tiny +1 bonus to your sneak check because you wore cotton socks today, whoops its a +15 % because you are mid RNG, oopsie!" similarly "AHah after a week of hunting it down, a mighty rifle laser sight +1, whats that do 15% right? Whoops I'm at the end of the RNG, its a +0.4% modifier, my bad! I guess if I make this roll about a couple of thousand times I might notice the difference in the long run..."

Worse still that is NOT a transparent mechanic. It is opaque it is VERY opaque. When flat bonuses require you to a look up a table for us to determine their actual influence on percentage chance of success that is NOT acceptable.

Worse still this entire conversation began do to mentioning DICE POOLS, which aren't even the same thing as (relatively simple) 3d6 RNG anyway and are even stupider when it comes to modeling statistical insignificances and being massively opaque to the players.

You just came in and got your knickers in a twist because you are inexplicably offended that I dared even to off handedly challenge ideas used in systems you like or write yourself. And you have NOT had a remotely honest discussion on it up until this point.

And NOW your alternate discussion is ultimately just another evasion. A "but you can't account for taste" gambit. Not a firm argument in support of "curvy" mechanics and their actual mechanical impact on actual game play.

You STILL don't even remotely address my most basic criticisms of opaque dice rolling mechanics.

"Some people want a curve" is NOT a response to "That is a Statistically insignificant bonus".

"Some people want a curve" is NOT a response to "That is a clumsy and over sized granularity of bonus.".

"Some people want a curve" is NOT a response to "Curves make the game mechanics totally opaque and make for weird shit no one wants or intends".

Most of all "Some people want a curve" is NOT a solution to the described example system where an arcane multiple dice pool mechanic was causing chaos and unfortunate outcomes in an actual example "rules lite" RPG.

Hell its not like your whole 3d6 style curve argument even begins to address that since it isn't even a bloody dice pool mechanic. Those things REALLY suck.

PhoneLobster wrote:You see if you want to add a bunch of bonuses to your RNG there are more numbers on the RNG of 1d20 than on 3d6.

Are you telling me you are both too dumb to see on your own and too lazy to read this thread to see that the numerical range is entirely arbitrary anyways? You can use 3d8 instead instead of 3d6, or 3d100 for that matter. You can also use 1d3 or 1d1000.

PhoneLobster wrote:You learned something in philosophy? Well I learned THIS in Discrete Mathematics. Curves ain't really all that curvy. 3d6 for example is not truly a curve it is a bunch of points that approximate a curve. Poorly.

No Shit. 3d6 gives you a rough curve, 3d20 gives you a finer curve, at the cost of having to deal with larger numbers. Of course the same applies to a d20, except it approximates a line instead of a curve. We think of this as too obvious to mention.

PhoneLobster wrote:If your goal REALLY IS the ability to add bonuses to the roll multiple times it is simply NOT honest to say that more potential to add cumulative bonuses exists on 3d6, its just plain not true.

Yes, it is. We have hashed this out dozens of times.
1) We want to have something like DnD blindness - that is a 50% miss chance, except we do not want a separate roll.
2) Since we do not want a separate roll we need to pick a modifier. How large the modifier needs to be depends on where on the RNG you are. This applies to both 3d6 and d20. For example, if you hit 90% of the time in a d20 system we need to apply a -9 modifier to bring you down to 45%. If you hit 10% of the time we need a -1 modifier.
3) Since you will be near the middle of the RNG in most systems I presume succeeding 50% of the time as the default position - that is 11+ succeeds. Note that so far the systems are absolutely equal.
4) Starting at these positions we need a -5 modifier to our roll to bring the chance down to 25% for the d20. A -2 modifier does the same for the 3d6 roll. Again, the systems are equal so far.
5) Now what happens if we fight an ethereal opponent while blind (another 50% miss chance)? Well, the d20 system goes right off the RNG - you need a 21+ to hit. Adding -2 twice however only brings your chance down to 9% (15+ on 3d6).

And that is the entire point - multiple dice systems can handle multiple modifiers without going off the RNG.

PhoneLobster wrote:You DO go out of your way to once again pull the unit conversion/average failure dealio with the declaration that a +7 bonus on 1d20 is equal to a +3 bonus on a 3d6. Once again that is not the case. Notice how you add the +3 several times notice how the impact of that bonus changes each time?

The impact on the d20 changes too. Seriously. When you already hit on a 4+, adding a +1 to the TN is barely noticeable (85% vs 80% - a swing of 6%). When you only hit on a 19+ the same +1 TN totally fucks you over (a swing of 100%). Your insistence on every step needing to be the same linear percentage makes just as much sense as me stating "of course it stays the same. +3 is +3". We have at least three meaningful representations of our die roll systems here: The numerical addition to the TN (e.g. +3), the addition or subtraction to our chance (e.g. "-30%", "-6%", etc.) and the swing in your likelihood to succeed (e.g. "halves your chances of success"). Keeping all of these independent of your position on the RNG is impossible (and, to me at least, not even desirable).

PhoneLobster wrote:An honest approach to the issue would be to calculate the value of your bonus to the 3d6 based on its average impact over the range you intend to actually use it. Since you specifically claim you want to use it over basically the entire range and several cumulative additions why the heck are you pretending you are adding a 45% value bonus each time?

No one is pretending that. Furthermore no one is claiming the entire range is equal. In fact both me and Frank have stated that the edges matter less. They are still important, but the middle of the RNG matters more.

PhoneLobster wrote:More to the point why do you require the 1d20 example to add a +45% bonus each time when the 3d6 example is not required to do the same?
That is utterly dishonest.

Because the d20 system can not chance it's bonus without changing the modifier. We could of course use the following system: "apply all bonuses in order of magnitude. The first bonus counts fully, the second is halved, the third quartered, and so on." We would end up with something similar to a multiple die system as far as multiple bonuses are concerned, but it takes considerably more effort.

PhoneLobster wrote:So the AVERAGE value of the smallest increment I can add on the 1d20 is 5%. So I can do that like 10 times from the usual mid point base. Well that isn't bad now is it. I can have 10 discrete points of bonus.

Now the 3d6 system, I can only about 9 discrete points of bonus from the typically selected "mid point". And they change wildly in value. I want some idea of what the value of a +1 bonus is right? But I am doing what you stated in your goals, I want a system where I add SEVERAL if not NUMEROUS bonuses to the roll. Some of those other bonuses, like your stated goals might even be bigger than +1s. So that means my +1 bonus could apply anywhere on the range depending on the other bonuses.

You are doing it wrong. We don't care about adding big modifiers. Heck, I'd actually prefer smaller numbers, but addition is simple, so the +4 and +10 modifiers of a d20 system do not really bother me. Anyways, the size of the modifier does not matter. What matters is how the modifier affects your chances. And when you add +2 to the TN three times you are still on the 3d6 curve, while adding +5 even twice already kicks you off the d20.

Granularity on the other hand depends on the size of the die. If you want finer granularity, use 3d10, or d100 or even d1000.

PhoneLobster wrote:"OK you get a tiny +1 bonus to your sneak check because you wore cotton socks today, whoops its a +15 % because you are mid RNG, oopsie!" similarly "AHah after a week of hunting it down, a mighty rifle laser sight +1, whats that do 15% right? Whoops I'm at the end of the RNG, its a +0.4% modifier, my bad! I guess if I make this roll about a couple of thousand times I might notice the difference in the long run..."

You just don't get it, do you? Let's look at it from the other side: +1 is a meaningful modifier for a 3d6 system. Even in the middle of the RNG it brings you from 50% to 37.5% (a swing multiplier of 1.33). At the very edge of the RNG it brings you from 1.8 to 0.5% (a multiplier of 3.6). The equivalent for a d20 system is a +3 modifier (TN 11 to TN 14 makes for a 1.3 swing multiplier). However going from TN 17 to TN 20 is a 4.0 multiplier. In both systems, bonuses are worth more at the edges of the RNG. However this difference is larger in the d20 system.

PhoneLobster wrote:Worse still that is NOT a transparent mechanic. It is opaque it is VERY opaque.

See, this is actually a reasonable point. Yes, single die systems are easier to understand. Multiple die systems are harder and dice pool systems harder still.

PhoneLobster wrote:"Some people want a curve" is NOT a response to "That is a Statistically insignificant bonus".

You do not even understand how the d20 RNG works. The edges of both the d20 and the 3d6 RNG both have tiny raw percentages, but very large swings. That is not "statistically insignificant".

PhoneLobster wrote:"Some people want a curve" is NOT a response to "That is a clumsy and over sized granularity of bonus.".

You don't even get that the granularity is a function of the die size. 3d6 is an arbitrary number. So is 1d20. So is 3d10 and 138. The system remains the same, all that change is the granularity.

PhoneLobster wrote:"Some people want a curve" is NOT a response to "Curves make the game mechanics totally opaque and make for weird shit no one wants or intends".

Rephrase that as "yes, it makes the system harder to understand, but 1d20 does not work at all for the examples given". Opaque is better than broken.

PhoneLobster wrote:Most of all "Some people want a curve" is NOT a solution to the described example system where an arcane multiple dice pool mechanic was causing chaos and unfortunate outcomes in an actual example "rules lite" RPG.

Read the first page again. This argument started in response to your assertion that bell curves suck. 3d6 = bell curve.

PhoneLobster wrote:Hell its not like your whole 3d6 style curve argument even begins to address that since it isn't even a bloody dice pool mechanic. Those things REALLY suck.

Or perhaps you really suck at understanding them. Hey, how about start saying this: "Dice pools are too hard to understand". That is a reasonable point. Heck, looking at it from the perspective of a DM who wants to understand what will happen to the roll right now when he adds another -2 penalty for slippery ground I can totally understand that.
But also look at it from our perspective: when designing a system we are fine with slightly more opaque mechanics, if it lets us do more things - like simulating sliding modifiers in a d20 system without actually having to to do any division.


P.S.: I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the "dumb idiot" type of insults instead of calling me a liar. I am fine with you being rude. I am fine with you being bad at math. But if you want to call me a liar, provide proof or shut the fuck up.

PhoneLobster wrote:0.4% is hardly significant. Especially in comparison to the clunking great clumsy 15%. While the 15% is really poor granularity for an RNG we want to add numerous bonuses to.

"OK you get a tiny +1 bonus to your sneak check because you wore cotton socks today, whoops its a +15 % because you are mid RNG, oopsie!" similarly "AHah after a week of hunting it down, a mighty rifle laser sight +1, whats that do 15% right? Whoops I'm at the end of the RNG, its a +0.4% modifier, my bad! I guess if I make this roll about a couple of thousand times I might notice the difference in the long run..."

This kind of inconsistency is the result of when a bonus to a curved roll becomes common. Ideally bonuses like this should be rare, like the rifle. And maybe you are just so good that you don't even need it.

Going for a bellcurve mechanic allows the designer to make every bonus much more valuable. In effect, he takes only the first few times a modifier applies to a bell curve and then sets how valuable a modifier is based on those results.

Another thing is that even if we have the modifiers for 3d6 and 1d20 be equal the 3d6 offers more encouragement to stay on the RNG. Say if we have 8 skill points in both systems and five skills to put them into (assuming a target number of ten). With a bell curve you have a greater initiative to spread the skill points over multiple skills while with the single dice putting them in multiple skills is just as valid as dumping them all into one skill and flying off the RNG completely.

Murtak wrote:Hey, how about start saying this: "Dice pools are too hard to understand".

Oh hey look second post I made on this thread. In my first critique of dice pools.

Me wrote:Tool 2) Transparency
If the GM is going to just arbitrarily say "Yes", "No" or "Maybe, X+ roll to find out..." it is vital that both the GM and the players can clearly tell exactly what the GM is saying, and what the implications of that are.

So you want your "Rules Lite" systems to be as amazingly transparent as possible.

And I'm sorry to all you dice fanatics out there, but that means that a lot of the time the answer SHOULD just be "Yes" or "No" without ANY roll, just an arbitrary consideration by the GM of the situation and maybe player input or character "attributes" with a simple decisive result.

And even MORE insulting for the dice fanatics, even if the GM decides to let it go to a roll, it needs to be the simplest possible roll. If he is screwing you with near impossible odds needs to be absolutely clear to you, and even more importantly to him.

And I'm sorry but for me that means dice pools are right fucking out. Certainly ones as complex and quirky as the example system.

One dice, rolled once, vs a single DC number, with MAYBE a single net bonus to the dice roll result.

THAT is an acceptable transparent mechanic. The GM picks the DC and maybe the bonus you get on your roll and pretty much anyone should be able to see the implications of that on your likely hood of success.

If the GM is being overly generous or overly dicky, you know. And HE knows, which is also handy. You never get a situation where the GM has been screwing you forever and you can't tell, or worse where he has been screwing you forever and not only not doing it deliberately but not even realizing he was doing it.

But you know, don't let anything I ever said stand in the way of you making shit up.

Like how you know, this whole damn tangent is because you guys insisted on making up a farcical and dishonest shell game to pretend that there was some good element in these sorts of mechanics and in the process argued for four pages without ever actually addressing the transparency concerns I raised in the original posts on the topic.

Aside from that I don't think there is a single thing I need to address in your latest licking out of Frank's ass.

Domincus wrote:Ideally bonuses like this should be rare, like the rifle. And maybe you are just so good that you don't even need it.

Lets go on a nearly complete tangent for a second and look at the table top miniatures game, "War Machine".

It's basic mechanic is 2d6+Bonus vs DC sometimes plus some extra d6s.

It works somewhat for a couple of reasons.
1) It isn't actually an RPG so the frequency and importance of the rolls is rather different.
2) Just as you said bonuses are rare.

Typically it is just that ONE bonus. So at the design level the creator can have some better idea what a bonus of that size will actual do and what value it will have.

And it's relatively easy for players to understand as much of the game balances around the mid range of the RNG and they rarely have to consider the odds of the stupidly useless end of the RNG. And it doesn't even matter if the RNG IS shrunk because of the useless parts of it, because its a war game so you don't NEED that high granularity.

Going for a bellcurve mechanic allows the designer to make every bonus much more valuable. In effect, he takes only the first few times a modifier applies to a bell curve and then sets how valuable a modifier is based on those results.

This is false on two points.

Bell curves do not have a monopoly on making a modifier "more valuable". Because of the fact that modifier may well become LESS valuable due to variable contexts they aren't even especially good at it.

A linear RNG can do the same with larger granularity, or just a bigger bonus.

Also if you take the "first few times a modifier applies and use those results to determine value" what you are essentially doing is something like this...

I design a 3d6 system. I decide that +2 bonuses will be used by... stuff... I decide that maybe TWO such bonuses might apply, pretty much ever.

To determine the average value of +2 bonuses I calculate it over the full +4 potential range of the added bonuses. That is what you are describing and I endorse it fully.

Because that is what I encouraged, indeed demanded all along on this thread. But the samples given described a range that went to the limit of the RNG and discussed the "beneficial effects" at the limit of the RNG and I demanded the bonuses be valued consistently WITH the inclusion of USING the limits of the RNG, by using the method you are describing.

That is apparently NOT what most proponents of the "Curvy" roll want, or understand.

Apparently they feel they should be allowed to discuss the use of the limits of the RNG... without actually discussing the use of the limits of the RNG.

Anyway. You if cut your functional range of your RNG down, you create a disciplined system where bonuses typically don't escape from that reduced RNG then you are permitted to calculate the impact of your bonuses based on that cherry picked portion of the RNG. But if you start using THAT to tell me how cool parts of the RNG outside of that range are you are talking ass.

Another thing is that even if we have the modifiers for 3d6 and 1d20 be equal the 3d6 offers more encouragement to stay on the RNG.

Well no. Off the RNG is just plain off the RNG.

What bell curves encourage is a situation where we can be not off the RNG and no one notices because the chances of that result actually coming up as you merely approach the limits of the RNG are stupidly small.

"Pretty Much the same as being off the RNG but not" is... well pretty much the same. And sooner. And also more needlessly complex.

But THAT is another point none of the "Curvy" enthusiasts seem to want to discus either.

PhoneLobster wrote:What bell curves encourage is a situation where we can be not off the RNG and no one notices because the chances of that result actually coming up as you merely approach the limits of the RNG are stupidly small.

"Pretty Much the same as being off the RNG but not" is... well pretty much the same. And sooner. And also more needlessly complex.

But THAT is another point none of the "Curvy" enthusiasts seem to want to discus either.

I did discuss that exact point. At the point where you leave the d20 (fighting an invisible ethereal opponent) your chance of success in a 3d6 system is down to 9%. That is not much, but if that is "stupidly small" or "pretty much the same as being off the RNG" I am going to have to talk to you about the viability of 5% increments on your beloved d20.

PL, cut the TL;DR bullshit and at least pretend to interact with he argument being made.

Standard Deviation. Do you understand the concept?

-Username17

PhoneLobster wrote:More to the point why do you require the 1d20 example to add a +45% bonus each time when the 3d6 example is not required to do the same?

I don't. I require it to add the same static bonus each time - as in the static bonus that we wrote down in the list of bonuses.

I'm not exactly sure what your objection here is based on, since at no point did I mention wanting to add +45% regardless of target number or presence of other bonuses.

The whole point of the 3d6 is that the +X% changes. And yes, you can accomplish this in a d20 system, but it requires changing the static bonus depending on target number and presence of other bonuses. At which point it's no longer static.