Writing my own sci-fi game, what do you think of this dice chain?
1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>2d6>2d8>2d10>2d12>3d10>3d12>4d10

What's a dice chain?
So this set of dice/pools is used for damage, armor, all kinds of game values. If you get a bonus, you go up on the chain instead of a flat +1 bonus.

It seems to be too steep near the end.

When the jump between each step goes from 2 to 4 it probably gets as steep as it should, but then it goes up to 6 and tapers off to 4 again at the end.

Gonna make some of the math at those steps wonky.

Assuming no exploding dice, the average results will be:
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22

That's one helluva a curve. Without seeing what the rest of the system looks like, it's hard to tell if this would be functional or not.

Speaking purely as an experienced GM but not someone with a particular proficiency in maths it feels like there should be a 3d8 in there somewhere.

On the other-hand presumably the top of the chain is much less likely to be used and probably reserved for the most powerful effects and weapons so a big jump isn't necessarily a bad thing.  In fact from a narrative stand point you might have good results purposely building in an atypical jump at the end of the chain.

Quote from: Effete on August 08, 2022, 02:25:59 AM
Assuming no exploding dice, the average results will be:
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22

That's one helluva a curve. Without seeing what the rest of the system looks like, it's hard to tell if this would be functional or not.

+1 +1 +1, +2 +2 +2 +2, +3 +3 +3. Working as intended, a little bell curve of avgs. Too steep? This would apply to damage out of a gun in a Call of Cthulhu-style d100 system.

Quote from: Visitor Q on August 08, 2022, 02:50:44 PM
Speaking purely as an experienced GM but not someone with a particular proficiency in maths it feels like there should be a 3d8 in there somewhere.

I want to whole deal to be done with 2 sets of 7 dice, so 3d8 becomes 2d12

Quotethe top of the chain is much less likely to be used and probably reserved for the most powerful effects and weapons .

that's exactly the deal, with two "large jumps" (going from +1 to +2 avg, and from +2 to +3) added to give attentive players a tactical spot to aim for.

As I said, it's a steep curve, but I cannot assess whether or not it is "too steep" until I see how it is being implemented.

Quote from: Hixanthrope on August 08, 2022, 08:32:39 PM

Quote from: Effete on August 08, 2022, 02:25:59 AM
Assuming no exploding dice, the average results will be:
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22

That's one helluva a curve. Without seeing what the rest of the system looks like, it's hard to tell if this would be functional or not.

+1 +1 +1, +2 +2 +2 +2, +3 +3 +3. Working as intended, a little bell curve of avgs. Too steep? This would apply to damage out of a gun in a Call of Cthulhu-style d100 system.

Quote from: Visitor Q on August 08, 2022, 02:50:44 PM
Speaking purely as an experienced GM but not someone with a particular proficiency in maths it feels like there should be a 3d8 in there somewhere.

I want to whole deal to be done with 2 sets of 7 dice, so 3d8 becomes 2d12

Quotethe top of the chain is much less likely to be used and probably reserved for the most powerful effects and weapons .

that's exactly the deal, with two "large jumps" (going from +1 to +2 avg, and from +2 to +3) added to give attentive players a tactical spot to aim for.

I do not think that bell curve is the right word for this. Your curve starts shallow and keeps getting steeper...which is a very un-bell-like shape.

Quote from: Hixanthrope on August 08, 2022, 08:32:39 PM

Quote from: Effete on August 08, 2022, 02:25:59 AM
Assuming no exploding dice, the average results will be:
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22

That's one helluva a curve. Without seeing what the rest of the system looks like, it's hard to tell if this would be functional or not.

+1 +1 +1, +2 +2 +2 +2, +3 +3 +3. Working as intended, a little bell curve of avgs. Too steep? This would apply to damage out of a gun in a Call of Cthulhu-style d100 system.

I make the expected scores:

2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16.5, 19.5, 22

The increases are:

1, 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 2, 3.5, 3, 2.5

That means that the biggest jump is from 2d12 to 3d10, so those 3dx rolls are a cut above, though the incremental improvements start dropping off from there. Visitor Q's suggestion of 3d8 fits well if it replaces 3d10. Then the scores become:

2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 9, 11, 13.5, 16.5, 19.5, 22

and the increases become:

1, 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 2.5, 3, 3, 2.5

I don't like the drop off of 2.5 towards the end. I'd be tempted to replace the 4d10 with 4d12. That gives:

1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>2d6>2d8>2d10>2d12>3d8>3d12>4d12

with expected scores:

2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 9, 11, 13.5, 16.5, 19.5, 26

and increases:

1, 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 2.5, 3, 3, 6.5

That last roll is presumably a big increase to represent a truly awesome ability.

But all that's academic. Playtesting is the only way to work out what works.