Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076879A part of me wants to come up with some "clever" mechanical solution. I really like the idea of cards instead of dice, to reduce streakiness.

Oh god this. About once a month over on BGG we get some one with dice phobia wanting to replace the horrible random dice with cards!

And then various designers have to explain, again, how it doesnt work that way, AND adds a new layer of problem. Here is some of the flaws. YMMV depending on the system and how badly someone wants to remove dice of course.

System 1: straightup replacement of a d20 with 20 cards numbered 1-20. Shiffle and draw one each time you need a number: Guess what? This is absolutely no different than rolling a dice. But now you have to shuffle cards EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME.

System 2: Same as 1. But lets just remove that nasty shuffling and some of the mean ol randomness. Now you shiffle once and then draw cards as needed, not shuffling till the deck is depleted. Problem solved!: Problem NOT solved. Now you have both a random element and a not random element all together. AND you STILL have not removed streaks. You have just changed how they happen. You roll to hit. Its a 1. Roll again, a 10, roll again, a 7, Sure you will eventually get good numbers. But that may come up when either it isnt important, or when rolling high is not a good thing. In D&D that happens less often, but with say 5e and Disadvantage you can and will see it happen.

System 2.5!: Same as 2. But lets just double the cards so theres two of everything. That will mitigate the streaks right?: Sorry, no. It will extend them. Now you can draw even more low numbers in a row, or get more disad wastes. etc.

System 3: Ok. Lets use a weighted deck! More good numbers and less bad ones!: Then what is the point in rolling/drawing a number at this point? Eventually you will get a bad roll at a crucial moment and then rail against the RNG gods and set out to "fix" the soul crushing dissapointment of drawing a 1 when you needed to hit the lich king. And so on ad nausium with variations on this idea.

System 4: This is my own design. Just take a spread of numbers and each time you need one you select one and check it off. You decide when to use each from the diminishing pool of numbers.: This gives you control over things, and you will probably have to make a few hard decisions. It works. But personally I think it lacks any threat of bad or the boon of good rolls and string of either. There is no real uncertainty and really you might as well just remove even this and just to to storytelling because theres no game left at that point.

System X: Universalis had an interesting take on the idea though. Nothing was random. Instead players bid with an allotment of points if an action or event succeeded or failed. Players could for example  turn your bid to slay the lich king into a failure or even your characters death if they so desired. Obviously a system that relied a bit on player friction or at least players willing to throw wrenches into others plans now and then.

Quote from: Omega;1076888System 1: straightup replacement of a d20 with 20 cards numbered 1-20. Shiffle and draw one each time you need a number: Guess what? This is absolutely no different than rolling a dice. But now you have to shuffle cards EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME.

Wait, what? I thought the idea was you can roll two consecutive 6'es (or 20's, or 1's) on a d20, but with a deck of cards, you theoretically have to go through all the numbers once before you can have an exact duplicate result. You'll get all the low results, but all the high results too. Am I missing something? If you shuffle on every draw, then yes, it's functionally the same as rolling a dice, but the idea is you shuffle when the deck runs out. (jhim's variant puts a joker in to the deck isn't too predictable as it runs through the cards...)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076879A part of me wants to come up with some "clever" mechanical solution. I really like the idea of cards instead of dice, to reduce streakiness.
But then a part of me realizes a cold dice night isn't the end of gaming. We did make it through the adventure after all, and there are ways to participate beyond dice rolls. (Contributing tactically, etc)
Considering it's Starfinder Society, I doubt the GM can make houserule changes to the core systems.
For homebrew GM's it's a design thing to consider, for sure.

I'm glad you like the card idea, but yeah, if it's Starfinder Society then that won't fly. A cold dice night isn't the end of gaming - but if there's a way to have more fun, then that's good too.

One rule of thumb I have is to make sure that PCs are highly competent in their specialty. A homebrew or new system can build this in, but in a campaign with an existing system, a GM can help this by giving special benefits to characters in their specialties. So, make sure that the best fighter gets magic armor that makes them even better in their specialty, while the thief gets a personal ally to help them with criminal operations. This is in contrast to giving characters benefits that mitigate their weaknesses, like a ring of protection for the wizard. If the specialty bonuses are strong enough, then even a cold dice night means you still get to be seem competent - just not up to your standards.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076825Rolling consistently 1-6 on d20 means rolling consistently on the bottom 30% end. 2-6 on 2d6 is 15 out of 36, aka 41.67%. PbtA wouldn't have helped OP at all.

You're forgetting the stats modifiers, which go from -1 to +3, and would change the result from a plain fail to a success at a cost.

1. accept poor dice streaks.

2. Embrace the 3d6 GURPs methodology. It's dice, but poor roll or high roll streaks require extra more bad luck than a d20.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076898Wait, what? I thought the idea was you can roll two consecutive 6'es (or 20's, or 1's) on a d20, but with a deck of cards, you theoretically have to go through all the numbers once before you can have an exact duplicate result. You'll get all the low results, but all the high results too. Am I missing something? If you shuffle on every draw, then yes, it's functionally the same as rolling a dice, but the idea is you shuffle when the deck runs out. (jhim's variant puts a joker in to the deck isn't too predictable as it runs through the cards...)

Noooo. That is method 2 of the various ones I listed. They have all been proposed by would-be designers.

I actually left out some methods like actually removing the low numbers. Which again can end us in the same. "Then why bother having any random?" boat.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10769172. Embrace the 3d6 GURPs methodology. It's dice, but poor roll or high roll streaks require extra more bad luck than a d20.

Yep, this works pretty similar to the Dungeon World/PbtA idea above: rig the results to fall on a particular range. In Gurps case, it's the probability curve created by 3D6 that makes most results fall on the middle range of the spectrum.

Another solution in this vein is breaking the 1d20 into 2d10 adding each die result. This way you would create a probability curve just like Gurps do, and rig results to fall on the mid of the spectrum. (though if you're changing dice this way, I think it's better to go for 3d6 already since the later curve is more pronounced)

Here, a comparison:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Probabilite_une_valeur_d20_2d10_3d6.svg

In our home brew, we aim for 70% (plus or minus) success rate (by single die opposed rolls using polyhedral dice). The other thing is, with an opposed system, even if you roll low, there is always the chance your opponent also rolls low, so there is no "minimum" needed to hit. (We give ties to the players, so even if you both roll a 1, you hit.)

We're really generous in granting of bonuses (go up one die size) for good plans.

Even then, we had a combat where three players and an orc kept missing each other.

The nice thing is my players adapted. They started talking to the orc -- who talked back. They ended up trading information for letting the orc go.

I think adaptation is really the best way to handle "bad rolls". If you keep "missing", find something else to do. Build bonfire to distract the opponents. Run behind them and yell "boo!".

To the OP, why are you retreating to your tablet each time? Pay attention for a chance to help in some other way. (We let players go anytime they want, which helps with this--everyone is always looking for a chance to help or keep someone else from getting too wounded.)

Quote from: Omega;1076982Noooo. That is method 2 of the various ones I listed. They have all been proposed by would-be designers.

I actually left out some methods like actually removing the low numbers. Which again can end us in the same. "Then why bother having any random?" boat.

I noticed. I figured I'd leave it instead of editing. The point remains that streakiness with dice does occur, and whether that's desirable or not.

Quote from: Tod13;1077018To the OP, why are you retreating to your tablet each time? Pay attention for a chance to help in some other way. (We let players go anytime they want, which helps with this--everyone is always looking for a chance to help or keep someone else from getting too wounded.)

I usually try to stay engaged. In this instance, like I said, we had a big group, so there was lots of stuff going on, and my contribution to the combat was zero, so I was bored.

Another option that is a little less intrusive is to simply give a bonus to successive rolls when a streak is detected.  You do NOT want to do this on any failure, because failures happen all the time.

For example, fail once, nothing happens.  Fail a second time in a row, you get a token.  Fail a third time in a row (with token already in hand), you now get a modifier to successive rolls (+2 to +4 on a d20, depending upon your tolerances), until such time as you succeed.  Succeed, hand the token back.  If you manage to keep the bad streak alive with the mod, then mark it down as one of those rare, memorable times and laugh about it.

I used a variation of that in a Fantasy Hero game for awhile.  Even with the mitigating affects of the Hero 3d6 for resolution, we still had a couple of incredibly unlucky players.  (Or more precisely, once I verified the dice were OK, when I tracked and modeled their results, they tended to have streaks of bad luck at the worst possible moments, and streaks of good luck when it didn't matter much.)  

Eventually, those players switched to a style of play where they weren't so dependent upon dice streaks for their own enjoyment, and we dropped the extra mechanic.  I have since noticed that those two players tend to gravitate naturally towards streaky characters, unless they consciously choose to avoid them.  One of them is in a D&D 5E game right now.  She was unhappy with the results with a Fighter (champion) but is enjoying a Paladin much more.  Same rolls as before, but more steady results.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1077035I usually try to stay engaged. In this instance, like I said, we had a big group, so there was lots of stuff going on, and my contribution to the combat was zero, so I was bored.

Yea. I understand that. We try to keep our group to ~3-4 players and our homebrew has really quick individual turns (each side rolls one die). Also, my players don't dither about what to do--they may do insane things, but they perform them with dispatch.

But at the same time, wasn't there anything else you could try, however weird? Or is it not that sort of group? My players have done stuff like have the giant anthropomorphic white tiger throw the invisible fairy with a magic attack spell into a room like a grenade or start trying to convert the enemy to your religion in mid-battle or just run to one side shouting "missed me! Neener neener neener!" to distract or move the enemy out of position.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1077035I usually try to stay engaged. In this instance, like I said, we had a big group, so there was lots of stuff going on, and my contribution to the combat was zero, so I was bored.

I think all this really comes down to is D&D-style resolution. It's in many -- if not most -- of the major RPG systems. As in, two actions which are committed with several types of actions (full, standard, bonus etc...). For me, this is incredibly boring. As a GM moreso. For instance, if my boss creatures or my powergamer PCs can't even juggle, what's the point.

I just think for RPGs going into the 2020s, we need to fundamentally rethink how RPGs are designed. It's why I designed my system the way I did and I do hope to see other designers adopting the same mindset to explore what we can do out here.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1077049I think all this really comes down to is D&D-style resolution. It's in many -- if not most -- of the major RPG systems. As in, two actions which are committed with several types of actions (full, standard, bonus etc...). For me, this is incredibly boring. As a GM moreso. For instance, if my boss creatures or my powergamer PCs can't even juggle, what's the point.

I just think for RPGs going into the 2020s, we need to fundamentally rethink how RPGs are designed. It's why I designed my system the way I did and I do hope to see other designers adopting the same mindset to explore what we can do out here.

Count me in on the boredom. That's one of the reasons I drifted to games with built-in failing forward and other "fortune-deemphasizing" mechanisms, like PbtA, Blades in the Dark, Cortex, Fate, etc.

What did you do to address it in your game?

Quote from: Tod13;1077045Yea. I understand that. We try to keep our group to ~3-4 players and our homebrew has really quick individual turns (each side rolls one die). Also, my players don't dither about what to do--they may do insane things, but they perform them with dispatch.

But at the same time, wasn't there anything else you could try, however weird? Or is it not that sort of group? My players have done stuff like have the giant anthropomorphic white tiger throw the invisible fairy with a magic attack spell into a room like a grenade or start trying to convert the enemy to your religion in mid-battle or just run to one side shouting "missed me! Neener neener neener!" to distract or move the enemy out of position.

Sure. For the specific combat where I zoned out, we were exploring a derelict spacecraft, and the hallways were single file. (Maybe dual file, depending on which part) which created a bottleneck, and meant that my character's actions were pretty restricted. Other combats were more open, but really I was spending most of my time waiting for my turn to do stuff. Everybody else had stuff handled, and I was just contributing more damage to the combat.