Quote from: ggroy;641458What are the design motivations for a single resolution method?

Well... remember that I'm speaking as a outsider to the mindset.

It seemed to be driven originally by people who disliked pre-3.x D&D's use of multiple resolution methods. Some simple examples: You roll a D20 to hit, but a D6 to see if you're surprised. You roll under for some things (saving throws) but over for others (to hit).

They considered it a burden to playing the game. And the call was for a universal mechanic to resolve everything. Sites like this one (and RPGNET) greatly praised 3.x for it's advancement on this front.

From my viewpoint, it's good when it's good and bad when it's bad. I consider a switch in mechanics to be a good thing when in terms of the game you're making a serious switch in what's happening. Thus a completely different system for netrunning in cyber punk vs. gun battles is to my mind a good thing.

However I do feel that there should be a point behind the switch. And searching for secret doors compared to a normal skill check isn't one of them.

On unified resolution mechanics - I'm not strongly in favour of these either (although I find it a hard mindset to break out of). Needing to roll high sometimes, low other times seems to irk lots of people. Its also been argued that a single mechanic is easier to learn.

Of course, most 'universal' systems do have some mechanics that don't quite conform e.g. damage rolls.

Design wise, there are potential benefits in cross-matching that you see occasionally (playing Savage Worlds I found that if all your skills from Fighting to Sandworm Riding are on the same scale, you can easily have a player roll Sandworm Riding to trample a foe vs. their normal AC...). The more recent D&D versions both have extensive numbers of class abilities and whatnot that rely on standardized attribute modifier systems and the like e.g. you can add a Dexterity modifier to attack rolls as easily as you can add a Strength modifier (Weapon Finesse). There are also abilities that let characters substitute skill rolls for saving throws or attack rolls, etc - this would be difficult if attack rolls and skills used different mechanics.

On the downside of course, a single system that's used for everything isn't necessarily ideal for anything. So in 3E the fighter with an 18 Strength gets a +4 on d20 for Jump (probably reasonable) and the same +4 modifier for breaking down doors (meaning the roll is mostly random and the party rogue may well beat them with a good roll). Castles and Crusades is another game where you can find occasional rants about its universal mechanic - compared with AD&D clerics get bonuses on Wisdom checks that make them better at perception rolls than thieves, for example.

Quote from: gleichman;641455Now days switching from a non-dice pool for the core system to a dice pool for treasure generation would likely be dismissed out of hand. There was a big push for a single resolution method for everything in a game and it still hasn't been outgrown yet. So you're see things that might need a different method pushed out the Game Layer rather than suffer that different method.

But I think that's uncommon, mostly designers use a mechanical resolution method for those things they consider important and key to the game- and let everything else default to the GMs and Players.

True, alas.
I had toyed with the idea of a two-tiered system for awhile which was basically d20+modifiers for success, then [dice pool] for effect in general (e.g. damage). Many tasks would then have been automatic (and hence defaulted to a dice pool roll), or have irrelevant effect (hence defaulting to just d20 roll), with an underlying rationale for both therefore.

I'll second the ease of learning and ease of swapping.

But damage, tables, and the like are usually treated as exempt from this drive, aren't they? It doesn't make sense to apply task resolution logic to something that isn't task resolution.

Quote from: beejazz;641472I'll second the ease of learning and ease of swapping.

But damage, tables, and the like are usually treated as exempt from this drive, aren't they? It doesn't make sense to apply task resolution logic to something that isn't task resolution.

Usually. Certainly there are truly universal systems (i.e. in d20 system games True20 replaces damage rolls with 'damage saves', or White Wolf games use buckets of dice for both damage and normal checks. They don't seem any higher regarded generally than 3E or the like, of course, but there are potential system advantages to having damage and/or hit points on the same scale as other things. You could imagine using # of damage points for some sorts of 'task resolution', such as determining whether a blow to the head stuns a character or whether a fireball sets fire to a house.

Quote from: beejazz;641472I'll second the ease of learning and ease of swapping.

But damage, tables, and the like are usually treated as exempt from this drive, aren't they? It doesn't make sense to apply task resolution logic to something that isn't task resolution.

Depends upon the system in question. In D&D 3.x, yes there were different subsystems.

However other games went so far as to determine both the success of the attack and the damage in one roll using degrees of success... a concept that dates back to at least Rolemaster unless old age has wrecked my memory.

One thing to note is that many people prefer some methods that involve more math to some methods that involve less.

Matrices that have the math done already were formerly pretty popular, but (due partly to influence of 3E D&D?) there's today a significant segment that far prefers to work formulae by hand.

The approach of rolling "high, but not too high" -- over a penalty but not over a base of so many chances in (e.g.) 20 -- greatly distressed one friend of mine, and seems a turn off for some others as well.

Quote from: Phillip;641841One thing to note is that many people prefer some methods that involve more math to some methods that involve less.

Matrices that have the math done already were formerly pretty popular, but (due partly to influence of 3E D&D?) there's today a significant segment that far prefers to work formulae by hand.

The approach of rolling "high, but not too high" -- over a penalty but not over a base of so many chances in (e.g.) 20 -- greatly distressed one friend of mine, and seems a turn off for some others as well.

The current D&D edition always seems to have a major influence on other works coming out in the same period, with various people copying not just methods but also design goals. (So I'm fearing for the future with D&D Next).
Of course additive systems have been around before 3E, of D&Ds derivatives Palladium had it, and Rolemaster.
I don't know what you mean by rolling "high but not too high" though??

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641856The current D&D edition always seems to have a major influence on other works coming out in the same period, with various people copying not just methods but also design goals.

Or what they see as the design goals, the attempt doesn't mean they actually figured out the real ones.

And it doesn't seem to be limited to current edition, just look at the OSR.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641856I don't know what you mean by rolling "high but not too high" though??

A base of 65% with a 25% penalty means a roll of 26 through 65 succeeds. A roll of 01-25 or 66-00 fails.

Quote from: Phillip;641870A base of 65% with a 25% penalty means a roll of 26 through 65 succeeds. A roll of 01-25 or 66-00 fails.

What game uses this?

I have seen games where the point is to roll higher than your opponent, but not over your skill limit. I had thought those were want you were referencing.

Quote from: gleichman;641871What game uses this?

I have seen games where the point is to roll higher than your opponent, but not over your skill limit. I had thought those were want you were referencing.

I've seen it as a houserule once or twice.

Quote from: Phillip;641870A base of 65% with a 25% penalty means a roll of 26 through 65 succeeds. A roll of 01-25 or 66-00 fails.

Oh, right. I think I've misunderstood (assumed you were still talking about additive systems/3E in that point). Yes, even if it saves on math, blackjack systems or similar calculations that are counter-intuitive are a turnoff for me as well.

Quote from: Phillip;641841Matrices that have the math done already were formerly pretty popular, but (due partly to influence of 3E D&D?) there's today a significant segment that far prefers to work formulae by hand.

The to-hit tables were abandoned with 2E back in 1989.

QuoteThe approach of rolling "high, but not too high" -- over a penalty but not over a base of so many chances in (e.g.) 20 -- greatly distressed one friend of mine, and seems a turn off for some others as well.

I've definitely seen this. Even the lesser version found in Eclipse Phase (where your margin of success = the # you rolled instead of requiring you to subtract your die roll from your target number) creates a lot of push-back and confusion at the table.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641902Oh, right. I think I've misunderstood (assumed you were still talking about additive systems/3E in that point). Yes, even if it saves on math, blackjack systems or similar calculations that are counter-intuitive are a turnoff for me as well.

Emphasis added by me: The point is that it does not involve a calculation at all, much less the subtraction that would be more usual.