Thoughts on this mechanic.

File: download (1).jpg (113KB, 888x499px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 888x499px

>>54631758

Natural 1's being an unavoidable auto fail isn't fun, and that the lowest chance of it happening is close to 10%, regardless of how well trained you are, is frankly ludicrous.

>>54631785
I'm working with mechanics not setting.

>>54631790
The idea is that the players aren't god who never fucks up.

8.33% vs the regular 5% doesn't seem too bad

>>54631936

D&D's d20 is often criticised for having overly punishing and frequent critical failures. That the most competent person in the world will totally fail one time in twenty is pretty fucking bizarre, and in your system it's even worse.

>>54632006
So what failure system do you like?
Do you just do the make/break with DC?

i'm looking for alternatives now

>>54632052

Honestly, the main problem is the idea that rolling a 1 should be a critical failure. That you rolled the minimum value on the dice is bad enough without making your actual skill irrelevant based on pure chance.

>>54632069
so would the system above seem less hellish if i just removed the nat 1?

I've never really been a fan of it, but it seemed like a bit of a corner stone

>>54631758
Unironically, read Ironclaw. Take a page out of its book on how to do the dice-stepping advancement. To summarize: instead of having you roll only one die, you roll your stat die and your skill die together (plus any bonus dice) and check how many beat the target number. This makes it so someone with a d12 stat (amazing talent but no training) has the same chance to succeed at a normal check as someone with d6 stat + d6 skill (average with reasonable training), but can't get two successes (critical), and has a much higher chance for all 1s (a botch). On the flipside, he can theoretically attempt a check that requires 7+ while the basic training guy can't, but it's still not going to be as reliable or exceptional without even basic training.

>>54632091
ok thanks.

>>54632086

I'd say scrapping it could only be a good thing. No mechanic is necessary, everything should be evaluated in the context of the system, what it actually adds to the experience.

>>54632140
well i kinda need skills.

I don't want to use a d20, due to being too large a variant.

Many other systems in my game use the evolving dice, which worked out well in practice .
I think i'll need to read a bit and play around with the system.

>>54631758
You should look up a game that someone on /tg/ made a while back called Knights and Knaves. I think the core mechanic in that is really similar, if I remember correctly.

Have you looked at Savage Worlds?