Something I’ve been thinking about lately is how the various operations in a game system generate extra math, so that I can try to figure out what would be the best methods to keep extra math down (best core mechanics), and build a more elegant system therefore. So how to use math to fight math.
What I mean by ‘operations’ is hard to explain but I mean stuff like:
*generating stats in the first place – whether by point buy or by random roll. This function might also be re-used in e.g. power score generation.
*recalculating stats, and then any modifiers from stats i.e. your Strength is 15 which gives you a +2 modifier, you’re fatigued and lose 4 Strength, yourmodifier is now +0. Aberrant very easily calculates changes i.e. rolling Strength+ Mega Strength dice separately means that a power that turns off mega-strength is easy to calculate, but any roll involves lots of dice.
*the core game system handling time (i.e. compare rolling under your stat, vs. rolling d20+bonuses, to rolling several dice and scoring ‘hits’). More dice or more calculations/larger numbers slow this down. Particularly a problem on multiple rolls i.e. 10 archers shoot at a PC.
*generating an ‘effect’ output from the core system. So while the ‘roll dice and count successes’ is probably more complicated than d20+modifier, the number of successes is directly useful for damage, soaking, etc., while the d20+mods system means you then have to compare total to target number, subtract, and probably divide by 5 etc. However, not every roll strictly requires an ‘effect’.
*generating ability damage i.e. whether the system has big enough numbers that you can use CON as HP, or need two separate values for CON and hit points.
There are a couple of other more esoteric operations as well, perhaps:
*handling a “zero” intuitively. Many games will adjudicate that a character reduced to 0 Strength is unable to move or 0 Con is dead, reduce a character’s Dex to 0 if they’re sleeping, etc. Game mechanics might give a zero a modifier still (doesn’t automatically fail without extra rules).
*skill-stat crossmatching i.e. choosing to use Strength for one athletics check and Dex for another.
*mult-stat checks i.e. letting multiple stats modify a single roll. In some systems this is done to better simulate a task where multiple stats seem relevant, in others its a reward (paladins adding +Cha bonus to rolls as well as another bonus).
*universal scale/reapplicability – systems might have powers that follow the same scale as stats, opening up simple options for power use like e.g. Telekinesis works as a Strength score, etc. Marvel Super Heroes has everything on the same scale, from object Material Strength to Popularity.
*diminishing returns. May be good as keeps bonuses under control e.g. the belt of giant strength adds 7 to the weak PCs strength but only 3 to the stronger PC.
Below that, I’ve tried to look at what the ‘drivers’ are underlying these things:
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/drivers_zps77eef2c7.jpg)
Note that by ‘amorphousness’, for want of a better word I mean that a single stat is used for rolling results. For instance in Marvel Super Heroes a character might have a Strength of Remarkable, but the system doesn’t easily handle large extra modifiers from skill etc. without breaking so the raw stat is used on checks. Likewise in Savage Worlds, a character has a stat or skill of d6, or d8, but the system can’t easily handle a [Strength+Athletics] roll the way e.g. Storyteller or even 3E D&D could.
Then comparing the drivers, looks like some of these things – directly oppose other things (the drivers that make one operation easier directly make another operation harder i.e. a large scale makes ability damage more workable, but means modifiers are necessary (making stat recalculation more difficult).
That's shown with a line in the diagram.
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/opposingfactors_zpsfadc588b.jpg)
So questions:
*am I missing any basic operations from my haphazard list there?
*How to figure out which operations are most important, to figure out what should be priorized if they oppose ?
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but for myself this kind of thing usually gets divided into two drags/immersion breakers, namely overhead and accounting.
Accounting is by far the slowest and most awkward part for most players, that is doing calculations based on dice rolls and noting down results, especially if those results have a significant ongoing effect on future dice rolls - ie a death spiral.
You want to front load the accounting as much as possible, so in character creation it's a lot more acceptable than in every single combat roll.
Overhead is having to look things up, especially if the results are likely to have an effect on future rolls. Less stressful than accounting but no less time consuming - however this can be mitigated by putting common tables and results on a cheat sheet, and noting key elements down on character sheets, ie a THAC0 table.
Overhead is generally preferable to accounting in common actions for this reason.
Using those two metrics alone the smoothest game would therefore be one where nothing on the character sheet ever changes, but that of course wouldn't be a game at all, so the trick is to find the balance you're comfortable with.
Again I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for but I think we're in the same ball park. It's easier to look things up and cheat sheet them, than calculate them on the fly.
Eep, if you can't follow this I'm in trouble.
Looking back at it I'm not 100% happy since I've invented two spurious words to try to describe what I'm talking about, and I've probably not spelled out my assumptions or whatnot enough, but writing out what I had there even was fairly exhausting.
To backtrack a bit and try and explain - I'm trying to figure out what sort of core mechanic & stat scale does everything important with the least amount of calculations. Each core mechanic should have a set of operations that it performs slightly more easily, but with a trade-off in some operations that become more difficult.
Each operation is a sort of function that might be used as the basis for a number of game rules - stat changes for instance might be involved in rules for handling fatigue, being polymorphed into a chicken, being enlarged magically, Rage, or even for taking damage (for games where CON = hit points), being petrified (DEX damage?), etc.
'Effect Conversion' (bad name, sorry) could be involved in calculating damage, spell effects, how well any roll whether diplomacy or climbing or whatever succeeds.
(and so on for other operations).
Your distinction between 'Accounting' and 'Overhead' is a good one... For my purposes here I'd have to consider whether a a system is making life more difficult once-off (in char gen) vs. over and over again ? E.g. how in dice pool systems you don't need to work out a modifier if your stat changes (=ease of stat recalculation), but you always need to roll lots of dice (=more core system handle time).
Okay, so you're developing an algorithm to track the amount of mathematics involved in various game events, putting the amount of mathematics for each event on a scale from 'not much' to 'too much', and using that to reduce the overall amount of mathematics by swapping out high maths for low maths when possible, or desireable? And then tracking all of the relationships between operations that depend on these calculations?
If I have that right it's worth considering that time taken can often be a factor as well as brain strain. Rolling buckets of dice and counting the ones past a certain number doesn't involve much brain strain, but it can over the course of several sessions become very tedious and consume more time than players are willing to accept.
So I guess, if I have it right, the question to ask is whether the goal is to reduce mathematics for its own sake or to produce a faster moving game, or what.
Interesting, and very close to what I mean when I talk about "discrete operations" in a game system though that goes beyond math to all individual steps in the process. So while each modifier added would be a step, so would a table look up or a page flip for a special case rule.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;640808Something I’ve been thinking about lately is how the various operations in a game system generate extra math, so that I can try to figure out what would be the best methods to keep extra math down (best core mechanics), and build a more elegant system therefore. So how to use math to fight math.
I generally like your threads as you're one of the few people here (I might go so far as to say the only other person here) that actually care about game mechanics. But I fear you've gone south with this one mistaking a means for a goal.
If one wishes to reduce math in a game to lowest possbile level, just have no rules at all. No rules, no math. You're done, and the goal of this thread is achieved.
What's that you say? You have other goals that such an approach fails at? How odd. Perhaps you should have started with those goals instead- and then worked out a system to meet them. After that, determined if the resulting math can be simpified.
It's the approach I took with
Age of Heroes, which in complete truth has as little math as possible in order to reach the goals I set for it. It so happened that those goals were demanding, and thus the math in the game (while very easy for some people) is far more than basically anyone on this board is willing to even consider.
And that points out another flaw in what you're doing. People have different levels of acceptance of math in gaming, and for some there might not be enough for a given system to make the it interesting. A goal of reducing it to the lowest possible level might well be counter-productive in ways you haven't thought of.
I favor game systems that frontload needed calculations at character creation but have a simple action resolution during play.
The level of complexity should be only what is needed to make the game work. Reduce recordkeeping during play to the minimum possible.
I lack the math skills to create an algorithim.
Can't please everyone because some people enjoy or require crunch, and others do not.
Quote from: Bill;640936I favor game systems that frontload needed calculations at character creation but have a simple action resolution during play.
It's a matter of taste if one favor that approach or not.
But I'd like to point out that it comes at a cost. Longer character generation and thus a higher cost to enter the game.
It also typically results very uninteresting and boring resolution. So boring in fact that typically I see people in that camp saying in the same breath that they want to spend as little time as possible dealing with the resolution. In real terms, they want to go see Die Hard, but cut all the actions scenes down to 30 seconds total in the move and focus on finding fire hoses and the yippie kay yay parts :)
Quote from: Bill;640936The level of complexity should be only what is needed to make the game work. Reduce recordkeeping during play to the minimum possible.
...
Can't please everyone because some people enjoy or require crunch, and others do not.
The second part of that is key, and can easily override the first statement. And just because you don't have it in the rules doesn't mean that the players won't find it on their own.
One of the interesting things about the 'Let's play D&D' threads a while back to me (besides the fact they were mind-numblingly boring, but that wasn't interesting and it was expected) was where they were spending all their time.
Having selected a mapless version of the rules with no minis (and thus boring combat), they spent post after post buying gear- i.e. record keeping. This to give them assets (whose use was typically not covered by the rules) that could later be use to convince the GM that they had the tools to achieve whatever goal might come up.
Having removed much of the game system's record keeping and system overhead- they just replaced it with another type. Buying and inventory and debating the fine details of travel.
It was amusing. The game should have been renamed Accountants and Trivialities. Imagine the Lord of the Rings movie with endless scenes of buying stuff as well as those showing walking...
Quote from: gleichman;640944In real terms, they want to go see Die Hard, but cut all the actions scenes down to 30 seconds total in the move and focus on finding fire hoses and the yippie kay yay parts :)
A tv show which is very much like this, is "Person of Interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_%28TV_series%29)". (Especially season 1).
Quote from: gleichman;640919I generally like your threads as you're one of the few people here (I might go so far as to say the only other person here) that actually care about game mechanics. But I fear you've gone south with this one mistaking a means for a goal.
If one wishes to reduce math in a game to lowest possbile level, just have no rules at all. No rules, no math. You're done, and the goal of this thread is achieved.
What's that you say? You have other goals that such an approach fails at? How odd. Perhaps you should have started with those goals instead- and then worked out a system to meet them. After that, determined if the resulting math can be simpified.
It's the approach I took with Age of Heroes, which in complete truth has as little math as possible in order to reach the goals I set for it. It so happened that those goals were demanding, and thus the math in the game (while very easy for some people) is far more than basically anyone on this board is willing to even consider.
And that points out another flaw in what you're doing. People have different levels of acceptance of math in gaming, and for some there might not be enough for a given system to make the it interesting. A goal of reducing it to the lowest possible level might well be counter-productive in ways you haven't thought of.
Thanks Gleichman. Likewise, I always look forward to your threads.
I think I've misconveyed what I was aiming to do - I'm not trying to get rid of all math, so much as try to determine the approaches that are most efficient. The idea being that by making individual steps easier, the whole can then be made more complicated without being unwieldy.
Its again probably not clear, but I'm not just trying to minimize math but also trying to think about the number of accessory rules, needed to get a system to do what it wants to. Also trying to figure out which things are virtually impossible (makes sure I'm not trying to build a perpetual motion machine).
You're quite right the above doesn't consider other things besides just complexity here. I'm not sure how to, at this stage. OK, it does read a bit insanely but I realize that in trying to build a model it is JUST a model, and that the conclusions aren't necessarily more than a guideline. Mostly I'm hoping that people may have some interesting ideas here (e.g. your point made me wonder if there are rules that are simple, that however bloat inordinately when extra calculations are required).
Getting a mathematical model say is more or less impossible since all of the individual factors are slippery and subjective....and hence final results would be completely undependable...which I realize. I'm finding the process of building it somewhat informative though.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641028I think I've misconveyed what I was aiming to do - I'm not trying to get rid of all math, so much as try to determine the approaches that are most efficient.
Right here is where things get tricky. Efficient towards what end? Speed? Player enjoyment? Realism? You need to define your goals a bit better.
Quote from: David Johansen;640904Interesting, and very close to what I mean when I talk about "discrete operations" in a game system though that goes beyond math to all individual steps in the process. So while each modifier added would be a step, so would a table look up or a page flip for a special case rule.
I think that's similar to what I'm talking about. I would include those things, except that what I've called an operation here is a generic component used to build up a rule or part of a rule, likely repeated throughout the system. Depending on the game it might be a simple calculation, or a table lookup, or perhaps a dice roll, or have a few steps. Then the same operation is likely to be used again elsewhere in something else (a "function call" a programmer might say). Not quite so fine a scale as "discrete operations". I'm definitely open to a better word (function? subrule?).
Quote from: The Traveller;641031Right here is where things get tricky. Efficient towards what end? Speed? Player enjoyment? Realism? You need to define your goals a bit better.
Er, I've always been bad at that. I have my own set of preferences in terms of speed, realism, etc. that I tend to design to as I go, whether or not I can articulate them. All those things sound good.
Edit: I guess 'efficiency' would let me have more things at once that are somewhat at odds. Not hard to design a super-fast system that doesn't have realism or player enjoyment.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641028I think I've misconveyed what I was aiming to do - I'm not trying to get rid of all math, so much as try to determine the approaches that are most efficient. The idea being that by making individual steps easier, the whole can then be made more complicated without being unwieldy.
Yeah, I think we're looking at this from such different points of view that it's going to be hard to understand.
Trying the switch gears on my end, are you perhaps looking for a toolbox with weighted complexity that you can then draw upon to a new game design?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641033Er, I've always been bad at that. I have my own set of preferences in terms of speed, realism, etc. that I tend to design to as I go, whether or not I can articulate them. All those things sound good.
All those sound good, but don't hold much meaning without details behind.
I was going to launch into an example of how I end up working through them, but I think it would just derail this thread (and I'm not yet really certain what the goal of the thread is in the first place).
Quote from: gleichman;641037Yeah, I think we're looking at this from such different points of view that it's going to be hard to understand.
Trying the switch gears on my end, are you perhaps looking for a toolbox with weighted complexity that you can then draw upon to a new game design?
(on the other post: I don't mind derailing, but I may not be able to get back to the thread for a bit).
Maybe I should have tried explaining how I got here (this far). Basically stuck at step zero of building a game - as usual I know that I want to build something thats a fantasy game of the heartbreaker variety, and from previous games I know various things that I like doing - like having damage coming off attributes occasionally (fatigue and the like), super powers having their own power ratings, talents which directly boost attribute score to work as 'subabilities' (e.g. you could buy up a 'presence' stat specific to Comeliness), assorted other things - like wanting magical items to give weaker characters a bigger boost.
However, I could see that some of the very specific goals were contradictory, and I was stuck on whether I want to go with say [d10+stat directly], or [d20+stat modifier + skill], or even dice pool, and so on, and related to that what stat scale to use e.g. a 1-10 stat scale is useful for having powers on the same scale as stats, but the low numbers make stat damage hard to work with.
So, I decided to try to see which would be the approach that would get from A to B while generating the least amount of math. I've actually already gone through and tried listing out each of these operations, usually defined them 1-5 (where higher numbers were more unwieldy), and then totalled them up to try to figure out which approach would be best to start with, except that I'm not sure I have a comprehensive list of operations, and weighting them is unclear. Presently all the core mechanics rate very similarly. It looks something like:
Stat scale Mechanic SUM (lower is better)
1-5 dice pool 37
1-10 d10+stat+skill 35
4-24 +1 per 5 points 44
3-18 d20, +/- 3.0 mod 44
3-18 roll under 40
MSH ranks Rank vs. rank comparison table 43
1-100 d10+tens unit 48
1-x step die 37
-5 to +5 d20 39
3-18 d20, modifier of [stat-10] 37
So while it wasn't overly useful so far, I thought I'd post the ideas leading up to that and see if any useful ideas came up, to get out of the rut. Mainly, seeing if I'd missed any basic operations or whatnot.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641049Presently all the core mechanics rate very similarly. It looks something like:
How did you determine the ratings?
A bit dodgy but I used best estimate to pick a number 1-5. The system which would handle something most easily would get a 1, the system handling it with the most difficulty would get a 5, and an 'average' result would be a 3. Admittedly pretty subjective. For something like 'stat recalculation' I've considered that using the number directly is by far the easiest, with division being roughly more difficult for 10/2/5/3 or 4. Core mechanic I've considered that rolling more dice is more difficult, and that rolling under is slightly simpler than additive (compare vs. addition), while multiple dice are more awkward.
Some of the logic behind what I decided made something easier/harder is in the first post (the 'drivers' of each).
Looking at them again, the numbers are probably slightly behind where my thinking is at currently, some of the categories I use there have been tweaked a bit before the OP, and need more tweaking/amalgamating. I'm undoubtedly missing things as well, hence why the OP is more general theory to start with.
Here's the allocations I came up with from Excel
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/allocatedvalues_zps63249465.jpg)
That makes things clearer.
And really the only thing you're asking for is other methods so you can rate them as well right?
Yep! (And I think I'll also need to weight them somehow; some of the existing things here are a bit subtle or obscure)
My backup plan now is that I could both of these problems - a probably incomplete set of operations and being unsure which are most important - if I actually worked through the comparison of system types rule-by-rule (instead of trying to define underlying 'operations' that are involved in sets of what may look like unconnected rules), but that requires a big spreadsheet and a more detailed plan of what I'm doing. Also, current line of enquiry may still be interesting (e.g. it helps show oppositions between operations).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641081The system which would handle something most easily would get a 1, the system handling it with the most difficulty would get a 5, and an 'average' result would be a 3. Admittedly pretty subjective.
Is this based on the real time expenditure in performing a particular mechanic?
Quote from: ggroy;641358Is this based on the real time expenditure in performing a particular mechanic?
I never thought of directly measuring that, actually. I suppose you could do that.
EDIT: although different people will have different handle times (or even complete failure rates, e.g. I've seen 3E newbs adding +Strength to a d20 roll when we told them to do a Strength check, instead of +Str mod).
EDIT2: also will depend on the exact check. I considered that possibly using [d10+Stat] is actually slightly more complex than [d20+stat modifier] in many cases, since using the stat modifier will mean that often the modifier is +0 and so no calculation is required. However, they end being rated the same for core system since I decided that this is offset by addition with the d20 using larger values with skills.
(addition with larger numbers being slightly harder).
Thinking about it now, the d20 is probably also likely to require modifiers more often, since +5% increments are significant (instead of just +10% or more). So '+1 higher ground bonuses' and such.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641342Yep! (And I think I'll also need to weight them somehow; some of the existing things here are a bit subtle or obscure)
I see.
Well I think the goal is very personal (i.e. very subjective), but here's a three more for you.
Threshold (similar to your rank vs rank, in fact it may be identical): A skill of X always allows expected performance of that level, example: a master armorer always makes masterwork armor.
Skill vs. Skill: Could be applied on top of any of the other methods.
GM/Player Decides: No mechanics at all
Quote from: gleichman;641375GM/Player Decides: No mechanics at all
For something like this, it would probably be easier to just read a "Choose Your Own Adventure" type of book.
Quote from: ggroy;641388For something like this, it would probably be easier to just read a "Choose Your Own Adventure" type of book.
It's very common, even in highly traditional games ran RAW such as my own.
A single game and campaign typically used a number of resolution systems, and this one is almost always one of them.
Quote from: gleichman;641375I see.
Well I think the goal is very personal (i.e. very subjective), but here's a three more for you.
Threshold (similar to your rank vs rank, in fact it may be identical): A skill of X always allows expected performance of that level, example: a master armorer always makes masterwork armor.
Skill vs. Skill: Could be applied on top of any of the other methods.
GM/Player Decides: No mechanics at all
Eh, yes all very subjective :(
Sorry I could have been more clear, just to check I'm after more operations, rather than other dice rolling methods... ?
GM/player decides avoids all the mechanics so would seem to be the same regardless of core mechanic (unless you mean it to be a core mechanic?...not one I really want to devote any attention to, so happy to note its there and move on).
Threshold is interesting, since some systems do lend themselves to calculating minimum results more easily, particularly the additive systems where skill gives increasing guaranteed minimums, as compared to dice pools (which have low chances of failure at larger numbers but can always theoretically fumble) and step-dice (where 1s are still very common regardless of skill).
Perhaps related to a fumble or 'error handling' operation.
BTW - The original rank vs. rank system was in another system I'd partly designed and then abandoned awhile back. It used a table that converted values to a descriptive rank (something like 2-feeble, 5-poor, 10-typical, 15-good, 20-excellent, 30-remarkable, 45-incredible 70-monstrous, 100-Unearthly). An opposed table then gave same 50% odds for same level comparison - it went through a couple of iterations where it was d6 for awhile (sometimes with multiple dice), then d20 before I gave up on the thing. (playtesters broke me by not being able to remember the table).
The rank increases were set up to allow stacking but with less increase each time, and it was really good for variable-complexity tasks - as a normal rating was assumed to be 10, you could run a contest based off say, one stat and four separate skills at once with one roll, by letting a character add together their five ratings vs. a default opposing value of [10 (a Typical rating) x 5 = 50 i.e. Incredible complexity).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641396GM/player decides avoids all the mechanics so would seem to be the same regardless of core mechanic (unless you mean it to be a core mechanic?...not one I really want to devote any attention to, so happy to note its there and move on).
I consider it a core mechanic in any RPG.
Simple example:
Player 1: "So Thunder, old mighty warrior. Where do you think we should go next?"
Player 2 (Thunder): "We should go south"
That's
'Player Decides'A more meaningful example is the GM deciding that what reaction an NPC will have to a player request (assuming he doesn't decide to use a mechanic method to determine it).
Entire sections of RPG play are made up of this, it's likely the most common resolution system used.
It's worth keeping in mind I think only because people tend to forget about. But IMO part of Game Design is determine what aspects of play you leave completely in the hands of this method.
Quote from: gleichman;641400Entire sections of RPG play are made up of this, it's likely the most common resolution system used.
It's worth keeping in mind I think only because people tend to forget about. But IMO part of Game Design is determine what aspects of play you leave completely in the hands of this method.
OK - I don't have a problem with it used in that way.
It is interesting to think of why this appears for some systems in some contexts e.g. the D&D dungeon master might use this approach to generate treasure because the dice rolls are complex, when some sort of dice pool system might generate # thousands of GP and odds of magic items fairly simply.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641453It is interesting to think of why this appears for some systems in some contexts e.g. the D&D dungeon master might use this approach to generate treasure because the dice rolls are complex, when some sort of dice pool system might generate # thousands of GP and odds of magic items fairly simply.
Now 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.
What are the design motivations for a single resolution method?
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.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;641904Even 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.
Strange but true. You can either:
(A) Just look at the dice, see whether 7 (for instance) is higher than the attack number on your character sheet -- the same number you're using every single time! -- and, if not, call out "I hit Defense 7"
or
(B) Do addition or subtraction (or both) to arrive eventually at the same result.
What's most strange in my experience is that the protests came from the player least capable of actually performing the arithmetic he insists on using.
Quote from: Phillip;643740Emphasis added by me: The point is that it does not involve a calculation at all, much less the subtraction that would be more usual.
Well I hate it, either way :)
I think systems where lower is sometimes better and higher is other times better are more difficult conceptually, if not mathematically - they break the idea that the roll represents a quantity of something.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;643744Well I hate it, either way :)
I think systems where lower is sometimes better and higher is other times better are more difficult conceptually, if not mathematically - they break the idea that the roll represents a quantity of something.
I think that's probably putting well what many people feel!
It seems strange to me partly because the whole business of thinking about dice, even before piling on additions/multiplications/subtractions/divisions, is quite foreign to addressing the situation in-chararacter.
All the dice-roll does is generate a result, and as a player I prefer to concern myself as much as possible with the in-world events rather than with the machinery grinding away behind (or too often in front of) the scene.
Of course, computers can easily handle such drudgery. It is thus likely that all the attention the machinery tends to demand is in fact part of the appeal of paper and pencil games for many people.
Cheers (though I stole that from Clash, at least in part.).
Interesting way to look at it. Occasionally I hear someone saying that they like the feel of rolling more dice, or something like that - certainly its hard to convince high level wizard players they should take average damage - though the idea doesn't excite me so much.