Dice. They have clear numbers, can be manipulated easily, fall in line perfectly with statistics, and can be played with in a million little ways.
To be fair, I wish there were other resolution mechanics as creative and fun as the Jenga-tower from Dread is, but its just not something I think is very easy to divorce from tabletop. Not that I have a problem with it because dice are just that good. Simple, easy, no problem.
>>44832831 roll-under, be it a d100, 2d10s to simulate a d100, or a d20 as a d100/5
roll-under is the only way to properly do flat distribution, and it's also very versatile
I like dicepool systems but usually me or my friends don't have the amount of dice required to play them properly and end up rolling the same two or three dice a bunch of times and it's really bothersome
Custom set of d6s: each die has two sides showing Swords, two side showing Shields, and two side showing Wheels.
Combat works like this: each side rolls a pool of dice. If you rolled more Swords (offensive) than your opponent rolled Shields (defensive) you do damage equal to the number of Wheels (qualitative) you rolled, and vice versa.
>>44832831 we don't, the players just play it out at the table like normal human beings - why bother with stats in a social game? just gotta talk to your fellow human being, man just like the wizard player has to cast the spell he wants, barbarian's got to prove he can lift my fridge, and the kender player has to get the fuck out of my house.
why does every one like roll under systems? Doesn't that put a hard cap on all of the stats?
Also, i prefer either dice pools or 4z6 replacing a d20. I like bell live curves. I find it silly that a character could be a walking death machine, and then miss every single attack because he rolled a 1 like eight times.
>>44846892 >Doesn't that put a hard cap on all of the stats? Depends on how it's done. Heroquest has the masteries mechanic so you keep going up to 20 again but with some masteries behind it (each mastery bumps level of success, left over after critical success makes the opposing roll worse. Masteries cancel out).
But then again I don't need multiple year games with huge character advancement (at least not mechanically). I would rather a tight campaign or a few arcs then something new.
>>44844925 Did you come up with this yourself? Is there a system that uses this? I feel like you could have a lot of fun with this concept
For example a rogue-type character could have some kind of precision strike ability that lets them exchange a set number of wheels for swords. A more brutish character could choose an ability that does the opposite. I think this would be fantastic for a rules-light system. By playing around with the concept (possibly combining it with >>44846625) you could make combat much more mechanically interesting and increase character/class differentiation without making the rules significantly more complex.
I once ran a campaign of D&D with nothing but coins on-hand using quick binary conversions (I'm in computer architecture stuff). Obviously you can only roll in powers of two unless you want things to be even more needlessly complex, but d16 works if you just reduce DCs and ACs by 2 (the system using 10+[number] to determine a target number to roll is directly related to the d20 being used, after all). Hit dice were taken average, weapons were fudged to be d4 or d8 plus some number to have similar average to the one we were emulating. Critical threat ranges were higher but we didn't mind - that was the only thing with an actually meaningfully-skewed average.
All went pretty smoothly, great times were had and you only need 4 different denominations in your coinage (or you can flip one repeatedly in fixed order but that's annoying).
This is the most autistic shit ever. Please explain what it offers over boring old roll + adds? Keeping in mind that shit like the Apocalypse World mechanic does this "partial success" and "le consquences" shit just as well.
>>44849812 >when applying modifiers to your roll upwards is so much more intuitive Is it though?
"I need to roll a 5 or better, so I have an 80% chance of success" vs "I need to roll 80 or under so I have an 80% chance of success."
And then modifiers are either -X% or just half skill for hard and double skill for easy. As the GM I can just ask the people at the table to "make a survival check" and people can tell me if they make it or not rather than them adding everything up, telling me, then me telling them if they pass or fail.
>>44849812 Well, let's use percentile dice roll-under (d100) as an example.
All modifiers and targets directly relate to what you're doing. If your target is 40, you have a 40% chance to meet your target. If you have, say, a sight on your rifle that gives you an extra +5 to your Ballistics skill, then you know immediately that it's a 5% increase to your chance of success.
You still apply modifiers upward, but you apply them to the TARGET rather than to the roll itself.
>>44849860 I'm sorry, but as an autist there's no way that symbols with vague descriptions of how to interpret them in whatever circumstances your game may find itself is more autistic than simple numbers that you know what to do with. It's too loosey-goosey for me.
>>44850257 Of course they cancel, it says they count as ticks and crosses. Their benefits are conditional on a success and failure respectively, so you won't see the impact of a despair result unless you've cancelled all the triumphs out anyway. Vice versa. This is what distinguishes them from advantages and threats, which are independent of result.
>>44850741 Well that's probable, it's five in the morning where I am but I feel awake. Ever since I found fasting I've had tonnes of energy, I never misread shit or get pointless angry at people or other normal mistakes.
Incorrect, Anon. The Triumph and Despair symbols have two effects, the first operating as a normal Success or Failure result, the second being an additional positive or negative effect (depending on the symbol rolled), which happens EVEN IF THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE RESULT WAS CANCELED.
Check EotE core book page 12-14 for the exact wordings if you don't believe me.
>>44849225 Fuck flipping coins. Finger throws are better. Do like rock-paper-scissors, but throw out 0 to 5 fingers instead of rock, paper or scissors. Tally the number of fingers the two of you threw out to generate a number ranging from 1 to 6. If the number is under 1 or over 6, you simply flip the scale (so that 7 becomes 1, 8 becomes 2, etc.). Presto! Instant d6.
Of course, you could do actual rock-paper-scissors as well.
>>44836402 >I like dicepool systems but usually me or my friends don't have the amount of dice required to play them properly and end up rolling the same two or three dice a bunch of times and it's really bothersome Stop getting ripped off. Decent dice probably cost less than the snacks you eat one session.
>>44833015 >edgy Victorian detected You faggots don't even fucking duel with swords, like an actual gentleman. You rely on guns, which require *no* skill. And when you do use swords you do it with tiny foils designed not to kill the other dude.
>>44856481 >You rely on guns, which require *no* skill. Oh. For. FUCK'S. sake. >>44856469 >A lot of older Japanese trad-games use d6s because of the utter lack of larger sided dice, resulting in games like Maid and Magical Burst which have crazy d666 tables. I know. I GM one.
>>44856593 Anon. Anon. I'm thinking of *skill*, because the big deal with guns (and to a similar extent crossbows) is that you only need to train people for a short time before they know how to get shit done.
People often missed in duels deliberately. As a kind of "I don't actually want to fight you now that I'm 100% sober and am actually standing here in the snow". But even when they did it accidentally, it was a hell of a lot different to fucking up while sword fighting. Especially if you're using a rapier.
Let me put it this way; you went to fencing schools to learn to fight with a sword. You didn't go to shooting school to learn how to shoot a pistol.
>>44856665 You're a retard who doesn't know what hyperbole is and also you're new. I don't literally mean it takes zero skill to shoot a gun (and win, anyway; obviously it takes pretty much zero skill just to shoot it).
It's not "different difficulty curve". It's "basically no difficulty curve" vs. "high difficulty curve". >>44856667 Do you even know what point blank range is? Also, see above hyperbole comment. >inb4 lol backpedalling No, faggot, hyperbole's a very common way of speaking here let alone in real life.
>>44844481 I don't like how it pretends that advantage/threat is independent of success/failure, instead of being heavily skewed toward succeeding with threat or failing with advantage. The rules seem to be written under the assumption that you can fairly regularly score a bunch of advantages on a task you also succeed at. The result is that you never ending up using a weapon's crit rating, but it doesn't matter because you can get triumph with almost every roll for a pretty modest investment of XP.
>>44856751 >implying it takes skill to stab someone Hold your horses, I'm not saying it doesn't take skill to properly sword fight against a trained opponent, but you're positing that the basic level of usage of a sword is somehow complicated or difficult. It's not. Unless you're claiming that everyone you might ever have to stab with a sword is trained in sword fighting, you have to compare like-skill levels. Two people who don't know shit about fighting with a sword can still stab and kill each other. Two people who don't know shit about guns can still shoot and kill each other.
>>44849821 >only 10d6 I always found it hillarious playing a group of jedis in straight wars d6. When shit really hit the fan, and you threw a force point at something, you would easily be rolling 20+ d6s. And you add the total together.
>>44856814 The term point-blank range is of French origin, deriving from pointé à blanc, "pointed at the target", with the word blanc used to describe a small white aiming spot formerly at the center of shooting targets. Today, point-blank range denotes the distance a marksman can expect to fire a specific weapon and hit a desired target without adjusting its fixed sights. If a weapon is sighted correctly and ammunition reliable, the same spot should be hit every time at point-blank range.
The term originated with the techniques used to aim muzzle-loading cannon. Their barrels tapered from muzzle to breech, so that when the top of the cannon was held horizontal its bore actually sat at an elevated angle. During firing, recoil caused the gun's muzzle to elevate slightly, resulting in an upward movement of the shot. This caused the projectile to rise above the natural line of sight shortly after leaving the muzzle, then drop below it after the apex of its slightly parabolic trajectory was reached.
>>44856768 Point blank range can mean a couple of different things, and neither of them are that. Originally it meant the range at which you don't have to compensate for gravity when aiming, so 20 paces would probably qualify. More recently it has come to mean the range at which you pretty much can't miss, so 20 paces would not count.
Generally, I prefer dice pool systems that rely on little to no math. Adding up numbers, even if its just two to three at a time, can really bog down a game in the long run.
Sets, such as in the ORE or my homebrew system (which was inspired by the ORE but uses d6s, it's a more Savage Worlds kind of take on the system) are great.
1-3 failure, 4-6 success, with bonuses and disadvantages for 6 and 1, respectively, is also intuitive and fast.
New Fire has one of my favorite narrativist systems ever. It utitlizes d10 dice pools, and your pools can be just about any size based on your stats, skills, and story/character-based aspects. You take the three highest dice and add them together; if they equal 20 or more, you succeed. How many dice it takes to reach 20, however, determines the degree of your success (and thus your narrative control). Dice explode, so you can possibly reach 20 in a single roll. One die is a "Yes, and," two dice are a "Yes," three are a "Yes, but," and anything else is a "No, but."
Adding to the game's Mesoamerican inspiration, these degrees of success are named after different times of day, since making sure that the Sun rises again tomorrow is why you do pretty much everything as a PC.
>>44854192 There's no way to abuse it. Each possible throwout has an equal likelihood for each value based on the action of the opponent, and likewise. Unless you can somehow predict your opponent's favoured number, in which case you may deserve the bias.
>>44849812 >your skill/attribute/save/whatever is N >roll dice >if the sum of the die is N or under, you succeed >if the task is extra easy or extra hard, increase or decrease your skill before rolling, respectively
>>44862742 > roll one d10 (0-9) dice for first digit of the number then roll another (if needed) for second digit then roll third (if needed) for first decimal point and this goes on. > Rolls skill check > Needs under 78.637 ...Bruh
>>44849812 >I never understood roll under, but I haven't played a system with it yet. Imagine you have 2 dices. The number goes from 0 to 9 The first one represent the first digit And the second one the second digit.
Imagine you have 100% of making some action, if you roll under you do it, since all dices will roll under you have 100% chance of making it. Now imagine some action have 99% of chance. You will just not do it if you roll 9 on the first dice and 9 on the second one. That is 1 in 100 chance of not doing it, or 99% chance of doing it.
Rolling under with with 2 0-9 dices allow the dm and system developer to know what he is doing, no need to imagine the math on his head or try to guess what a +1 on a 3d6 would be, what would be the difference between a 3d6 and a 4d6, or what a result of 15 would be on a 3d6.
By using a 0-9 dices instead of a huge 1-100 die, you can even work with specific % like 46.564% chance of doing or selecting something if you or the system want. Just roll more dices if and when needed, the chance of rolling 2 dices is just 1 in 10, 3 will be 1 in 100, 4 dices is 1 in 1000....
>>44863021 You know. That could almost be cool, if you used it correctly. Round it off so that you never have to roll less than a whole number, but make it so every time you use a skill, it increases by 0.1.
>>44856809 Playing in my group's not-exalted WoD we'd regularly have 10d10 for a starting character's "thing" and by veteran status there'd regularly be rolls of 25+ d10s per character If there was a wargame that uses d10s I'm fucking set
>>44856789 >never use a crit rating Invest more in the combat skills then, we usually get triumphs and fail leading to deus ex machina and his with one success and enough advantages to crit a couple times
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.