We have this assortment of six Platonic solids for entropy generation.  Why do we want the vast majority of a game to only use one of them and include a bunch of math that can be chart lookups?

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 12:50:52 AM
Why should what's essentially a magic attack roll (spell resistance) use a completely different mechanic from physical attack rolls? I'm not just thinking backwards from my preconceptions, I'm just recognizing that most of these things are just "action rolls" and there's almost zero reason to handle action rolls differently--even attack rolls vs skill checks. Because attack rolls are ultimately just a task roll vs a difficult value, where the difficulty value is the target's defense. You can handle all of that within the same difficult/ability value scale.

You're trying to use a roll based on magic to say that all real world probability distributions are the same?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 01:20:43 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 12:15:35 AM
Nope, you're wrong, rolling 2d6, 2d10, 2d20 or 3d6, etc isn't the same as rolling one of whatever for whatever number of times.

Because everytime you roll the 2/3X yo have the bell curve built into each and every roll, while in the other case you don't, you ALWAYS have 1 in X chances of rolling any and all the numbers in the die.

Nope, you're bad mathing.

Let's say you have to roll 3d20 to win a combat. That's roughly a bell distribution of let's call it damage.

Now let's say you need to do X damage to win a combat. You end up rolling 3 times to hit, and do damage each time. The damage you inflict, over numerous times, will be bell-curvish. If individual rolls combine into some cumulative effect, then they'll start to approximate a bell curve.

Nope, you can't into math:

If nyou have to make 3 different 1d20 rolls then it follows that in a 2/3X system you would have to make 3 different rolls of 2/3X. The bell curve is built into every single roll.

Every time I roll a 1d20 I've got 5% chance of getting any given number.

Every time I roll 3d6 I've got a bell curve distirbution of the probalities of getting a number because of the ways you can add to that number increase as you get to the middle and decrease towards the extremes.

Edited to add the mathematical proof of my assertions:

https://anydice.com/program/fb4

https://anydice.com/program/116

https://anydice.com/program/e6

https://anydice.com/program/28b

https://anydice.com/program/1e

What does any of that have to do with anything I said? Those are just the probability distributions of a few basic rolls. There's nothing in there about multiple individual rolls with a cumulative effect. You're failing to understand the argument I made.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM

QuoteHaving a unified mechanic, in this situation, was bad design. It hurt player understanding and retention.

Except that it wasn't a unified mechanic by your own assessment in this very same post...

QuoteIt's a completely different mechanic, disguised as the same "unified" mechanic.

If you want to address the argument I built up over several paragraphs, we can have a conversation. But if you're going to ignore that and pick those different elements out of context and pretending there's a conflict, when there isn't, we can't.

After all, if you want to argue dishonestly like that, why quote both those sentences? You could have just quoted the second one, because, based on your same "reasoning", that sentence contradicts itself. After all, I do say it's a different mechanic and then a comma later say it's the same mechanic, right?

(Nope. I'm clearly that apparent conflict to make the point that there are two different ways to use "mechanic".)

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM
As I've pointed out multiple times, you're pointing out D&D's failure to properly implement unified mechanics as an example of unified mechanics failing when in reality what's failing here is that the mechanics aren't even unified (by your own admission), when they could be as I already explained in my prior posts. It is perfectly viable to just handle spell resistance/penetration as a skill/attack roll if they just used the same ability ranges and characteristics, much the way do largely do now in 5e, where the Proficiency bonus applies to everything, including spell DC. But they didn't, and that why it's usually D&D 3e specifically that comes up in criticisms against unified mechanics, cuz critics insist on pointing out WotC's failure to properly implement actual unified mechanics in that edition as examples of the limitations of unified mechanics as opposed to WotC's failure to implement them.

That's circular reasoning. You're arguing that we should force everything into a single probability distribution, ignoring the differences between the probability distribution of say bashing down a door, expertise in a skill, and taking high risk actions in a stressful situation, because a unified mechanic is good. And that a unified mechanic is good, because we can force all those different things into the same mechanic.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM
That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

That's the argument I've been trying to make, but you did it very succinctly.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 29, 2021, 02:50:56 AM

Quote from: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:17:58 AM
I think the answer is that pre-3e D&D was concerned with outcome, not process. So it used whatever looked to work best to get the desired outcome.

Yeah, this.

Unified mechanics are superficially pleasing in an aesthetic kind of way, but I don't think they're strictly necessary or even that beneficial. The fact that the game marched on without them for decades and did just fine speaks to their lack of importance, in my opinion. I mean, really what you need is an approach for determining the probability of success for a given situation, and then some appropriate dice rolling. Sometimes different dice or combination of dice might make the most sense for a certain situation. And even when a game uses different dice or different subsystems, we're not talking rocket science.

I'm not necessarily against unified mechanics, but if a game lacks a unified mechanic I don't consider it a big deal, or something that needs to be "fixed." I guess that puts me in the "unified mechanics...eh...don't care about it" camp.

That's almost where I am--except I do like unified mechanics and do find the aesthetics of the system important for my enjoyment of running it (at least in the long run).  That doesn't mean that I want just anyone revising the system to make the mechanics unified.  I sure don't want someone doing so that is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Vision Storm is the last person that should be involved in the process.  Anyone making the changes shouldn't even listen to him.

In an ideal world, it would be someone who wasn't predisposed to unified mechanics who had a lot of practical experience with the system that would look hard at every mechanics to see why it is the way it is.  Then this mythical designer would say, "Mechanic X and Mechanic Y" are practically the same and the value of them being different is negligible.  I'll unify them.  However, Mechanic X and Mechanic Z have an actual purpose to be different that stays.".  Then it would be a recursive process until every revised mechanic had been compared to every other revised mechanic and no more useful changes found. Said mythical designer has to care a lot about the system, be willing to change it, and be cold-blooded about what goes and stays.

In practice, anyone capable of doing that is probably going to feel like you said--that's an awful lot of work for not much payback.  All that time could be spent doing something more useful.  Never mind the problem of making all those changes without play testing.  So the problem becomes that anyone that does it is either a zealot about unity and/or completely unaware of the truth of Chesterton's Fence.  Hell, this whole topic is a great illustration of the Fence:  "I see no reason why this should be different.  Change it."  "No, go away and think about why it is different.  When you can tell me that, then I might be willing to let you change it."  Or the person is someone who has to walk this impossible tight rope of justifying their changes to those who don't care and justifying their not changes to people who haven't thought.  (Before someone gets bent out of shape, please note the very careful formulation of those last two sentences and exactly what was said and not said. They are not referring to everyone with an axe in this fight.)

Which is one of the many reasons why I get off the train and want to write my own system.  There's good and bad reasons for writing your own.  This reason is kinda weak but it is what it is.  Because ultimately, we can talk about the odds and the ease of use and ease of learning and flavor and all that, but there's a certain amount of the system is the way it is because the designer kind of liked it that way.  There's no amount of retrospective tinkering that will sort all of that out, even in mythical designer land.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:34:54 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 12:50:52 AM
Why should what's essentially a magic attack roll (spell resistance) use a completely different mechanic from physical attack rolls? I'm not just thinking backwards from my preconceptions, I'm just recognizing that most of these things are just "action rolls" and there's almost zero reason to handle action rolls differently--even attack rolls vs skill checks. Because attack rolls are ultimately just a task roll vs a difficult value, where the difficulty value is the target's defense. You can handle all of that within the same difficult/ability value scale.

You're trying to use a roll based on magic to say that all real world probability distributions are the same?

You're trying to say that you have "real world probability distributions" for how magic works? Or that "real world probability distributions" even work or can be properly applied in a TTRPG?

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM

QuoteHaving a unified mechanic, in this situation, was bad design. It hurt player understanding and retention.

Except that it wasn't a unified mechanic by your own assessment in this very same post...

QuoteIt's a completely different mechanic, disguised as the same "unified" mechanic.

If you want to address the argument I built up over several paragraphs, we can have a conversation.

Right back at you, cuz I have yet to see you address one single specific point I've made (and I've made several with specific concrete examples, unlike 90% of what you've said), but merely dismiss them out of hand while making vague unsupported allusions to stuff you're not even providing concrete examples of, other than one instance about Strength checks and another dealing with Spell Resistance, both of which I addressed.

Where the fuck have you shown me the same courtesy at any point in this conversation? Go right ahead and quote me the post. I dare you.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AMBut if you're going to ignore that and pick those different elements out of context and pretending there's a conflict, when there isn't, we can't.

After all, if you want to argue dishonestly like that, why quote both those sentences? You could have just quoted the second one, because, based on your same "reasoning", that sentence contradicts itself. After all, I do say it's a different mechanic and then a comma later say it's the same mechanic, right?

(Nope. I'm clearly that apparent conflict to make the point that there are two different ways to use "mechanic".)

What context did I miss? WTF did you say in that post that wasn't addressed a dozen times over in other posts I've made or would change what I said in this specific post? I picked those two lines because they were the most relevant to the specific point I was trying to make, which you insist on ignoring while trying to throw implications about my supposed "dishonesty".

I mean, Jesus Motherfucking CHRIST you're haven't even acknowledged the fucking point, which is one I've made in other posts in this same thread, in order to sidestep argument to try get me on my supposed "dishonesty" or how apparently I'm now obligated to devote time out of my day (or night as was the case this time, as I'm lying in bed with insomnia and making the mistake of picking up my phone) and go through an entire wall of text and nitpick every point that was made.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM
As I've pointed out multiple times, you're pointing out D&D's failure to properly implement unified mechanics as an example of unified mechanics failing when in reality what's failing here is that the mechanics aren't even unified (by your own admission), when they could be as I already explained in my prior posts. It is perfectly viable to just handle spell resistance/penetration as a skill/attack roll if they just used the same ability ranges and characteristics, much the way do largely do now in 5e, where the Proficiency bonus applies to everything, including spell DC. But they didn't, and that why it's usually D&D 3e specifically that comes up in criticisms against unified mechanics, cuz critics insist on pointing out WotC's failure to properly implement actual unified mechanics in that edition as examples of the limitations of unified mechanics as opposed to WotC's failure to implement them.

That's circular reasoning. You're arguing that we should force everything into a single probability distribution, ignoring the differences between the probability distribution of say bashing down a door, expertise in a skill, and taking high risk actions in a stressful situation, because a unified mechanic is good. And that a unified mechanic is good, because we can force all those different things into the same mechanic.

No, it isn't. You are pointing to something that IS NOT "unified mechanic" (but could be unified, as I've explained) as an example of how unified mechanics don't work. That logic does NOT follow. You can't point to something that isn't a "thing" as an example of how that thing doesn't work.

And all of this stuff about not taking into account the differences in probability distributions between different types of actions is obfuscating bullshit because those probability distributions don't exist. There aren't any objective, real world probability distributions of bashing a door or expertise in a skill, etc. that we have accurately calculated and could go find in a website somewhere so we could use them in the game, and games with disunified mechanics, like old D&D, sure as fuck don't take them into account. They just make them up based on whatever the designer (or GM) FEELS is like an appropriate probability distribution.

This is a fucking game at the end of the day. FUCK real life, uber accurate "probability distributions" that NOBODY uses in ANY system anyways.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2021, 07:39:57 AM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 29, 2021, 02:50:56 AM

Quote from: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:17:58 AM
I think the answer is that pre-3e D&D was concerned with outcome, not process. So it used whatever looked to work best to get the desired outcome.

Yeah, this.

Unified mechanics are superficially pleasing in an aesthetic kind of way, but I don't think they're strictly necessary or even that beneficial. The fact that the game marched on without them for decades and did just fine speaks to their lack of importance, in my opinion. I mean, really what you need is an approach for determining the probability of success for a given situation, and then some appropriate dice rolling. Sometimes different dice or combination of dice might make the most sense for a certain situation. And even when a game uses different dice or different subsystems, we're not talking rocket science.

I'm not necessarily against unified mechanics, but if a game lacks a unified mechanic I don't consider it a big deal, or something that needs to be "fixed." I guess that puts me in the "unified mechanics...eh...don't care about it" camp.

That's almost where I am--except I do like unified mechanics and do find the aesthetics of the system important for my enjoyment of running it (at least in the long run).  That doesn't mean that I want just anyone revising the system to make the mechanics unified.  I sure don't want someone doing so that is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Vision Storm is the last person that should be involved in the process.  Anyone making the changes shouldn't even listen to him.

In an ideal world, it would be someone who wasn't predisposed to unified mechanics who had a lot of practical experience with the system that would look hard at every mechanics to see why it is the way it is.  Then this mythical designer would say, "Mechanic X and Mechanic Y" are practically the same and the value of them being different is negligible.  I'll unify them.  However, Mechanic X and Mechanic Z have an actual purpose to be different that stays.".  Then it would be a recursive process until every revised mechanic had been compared to every other revised mechanic and no more useful changes found. Said mythical designer has to care a lot about the system, be willing to change it, and be cold-blooded about what goes and stays.

Which is exactly what I did in the (ONLY) two specific examples that have been provided in this discussion--Strength checks and Spell Resistance--which are practically the same as other mechanics (skill checks and attack rolls, respectively) and neither of which serve as specific purpose in the specific way that they're implemented that need to be protected from change. And the way I arrived at those conclusions was from years of doing exactly what you say in the rest of your paragraph, cuz I wasn't introduced into the hobby using unified mechanics, but B/X D&D, and didn't come by into unified mechanics until years later. After engaging on the EXACT same thought exercise you're describing here looking at various systems, specially AD&D 2e (before 3e came out).

Yet somehow I'm the last guy you should get to do this.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 09:31:58 AM
Yet somehow I'm the last guy you should get to do this.

Edit:  Also, you seemed to have missed the thrust of what "mythical designer" means. 

You aren't nearly as objective about these things as you think you are, which makes you even worse than the usual subjective person.  Not least because everyone that disagrees with you, you are quick to label as "cult" or "nostalgia" or similar comments, when you demonstrate over and over again that you don't even understand the counter arguments being put to you.  Or possibly you do understand them but pretend not to.  And while this is certainly subjective on my part since I don't know you from Adam, I can't see any evidence that you are even making an attempt to understand the root of the disagreement.  But unlike you, I'm not so arrogant as to assume that as fact, because there could be many reasons in a text-based forum for various misunderstandings. 

So yes, a person who says X is only liked because it is liked by a cult of people engaged in nostalgia is exactly the wrong person to consult on how to improve X.  It doesn't really matter what X is, either.  There are other, lesser reasons for excluding people, but that one's a slam dunk.  I'm entirely the wrong person to, for example, to attempt improve D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder simply because I don't like them very much.  I have a subjective opinion about many parts of them that make me a bad fit in that role.  The difference is that I know some of my opinions aren't objective and don't assume that everyone that likes them is not objective about them at all.

The above says nothing one way or the other about what I think about other opinions on this topic from other posters or your opinion about other topics.  It doesn't even mean you shouldn't have an opinion or shouldn't share it on this topic (as if I could do anything about that one way or the other).  It means that everyone else should be extremely skeptical of anything you say about it.

Well, why doesn't the current edition?

It is not black and white.

Originally, all dice were 1d6. Then 1d6 and 1d20, now we've got a d4 to d12. And not only for weapons - we've got bardinc inspiration, superiority dice, and divine intervention is 1d100. Why is that?

Why do we have to roll about twenty times during combat, but only once (or not even once) when intimidating someone or searching a room?

Why does a natural 20 means a critical hit when you're fighting, but not when you use a skill or make a saving throw?

Why do you roll to attack with a bow, but not to attack with a fireball - and magic missile doesn't even require a d20 roll?

Some mechanics just work better for some circumstances, not ALL circumstances.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-fallacy-of-unified-mechanics.html

With that said, I actually like the "roll 1d20 for most things" of modern D&D, even if it the results doesn't make sense for skills. The wizard has zero chance to beat a fighter in combat, but a 20% chance - or something - of beating him in an athletics contest. Can anyone else beat a guy who is twice as strong one time out of five?

3d6 would be a lot better... but using 1d20 is just easier for beginners. (I'd also recommend against using 3d6 for combat - I tried for years with GURPS and it gets boring).

My own system uses unified mechanics - you roll a d20 for spells, attacks, and skills (and combat ande spell-casting are skills, "thieves' skills" also work the same way, etc). I still use d4s to d12s for damage, however.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:37:53 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 01:20:43 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 12:15:35 AM
Nope, you're wrong, rolling 2d6, 2d10, 2d20 or 3d6, etc isn't the same as rolling one of whatever for whatever number of times.

Because everytime you roll the 2/3X yo have the bell curve built into each and every roll, while in the other case you don't, you ALWAYS have 1 in X chances of rolling any and all the numbers in the die.

Nope, you're bad mathing.

Let's say you have to roll 3d20 to win a combat. That's roughly a bell distribution of let's call it damage.

Now let's say you need to do X damage to win a combat. You end up rolling 3 times to hit, and do damage each time. The damage you inflict, over numerous times, will be bell-curvish. If individual rolls combine into some cumulative effect, then they'll start to approximate a bell curve.

Nope, you can't into math:

If nyou have to make 3 different 1d20 rolls then it follows that in a 2/3X system you would have to make 3 different rolls of 2/3X. The bell curve is built into every single roll.

Every time I roll a 1d20 I've got 5% chance of getting any given number.

Every time I roll 3d6 I've got a bell curve distirbution of the probalities of getting a number because of the ways you can add to that number increase as you get to the middle and decrease towards the extremes.

Edited to add the mathematical proof of my assertions:

https://anydice.com/program/fb4

https://anydice.com/program/116

https://anydice.com/program/e6

https://anydice.com/program/28b

https://anydice.com/program/1e

What does any of that have to do with anything I said? Those are just the probability distributions of a few basic rolls. There's nothing in there about multiple individual rolls with a cumulative effect. You're failing to understand the argument I made.

Individual rolls might have a cumulative effect in a session.

But you're arguing that because that's so therefore using multiple dice is the same as using a single die.

That's not true, each 1d20 roll has 5% of getting any given number.

While a single 2d20 roll has the bell curve built into it. As seen below:
https://anydice.com/program/2666

And, several 2d20 rolls, also have a cumulative effect in the session.

Your argument is moot.

Which is why 2dX and 3dX and dice pools exist.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2021, 11:06:48 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 09:31:58 AM
Yet somehow I'm the last guy you should get to do this.

Edit:  Also, you seemed to have missed the thrust of what "mythical designer" means. 

You aren't nearly as objective about these things as you think you are, which makes you even worse than the usual subjective person.  Not least because everyone that disagrees with you, you are quick to label as "cult" or "nostalgia" or similar comments, when you demonstrate over and over again that you don't even understand the counter arguments being put to you.  Or possibly you do understand them but pretend not to.  And while this is certainly subjective on my part since I don't know you from Adam, I can't see any evidence that you are even making an attempt to understand the root of the disagreement.  But unlike you, I'm not so arrogant as to assume that as fact, because there could be many reasons in a text-based forum for various misunderstandings. 

So yes, a person who says X is only liked because it is liked by a cult of people engaged in nostalgia is exactly the wrong person to consult on how to improve X.  It doesn't really matter what X is, either.  There are other, lesser reasons for excluding people, but that one's a slam dunk.  I'm entirely the wrong person to, for example, to attempt improve D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder simply because I don't like them very much.  I have a subjective opinion about many parts of them that make me a bad fit in that role.  The difference is that I know some of my opinions aren't objective and don't assume that everyone that likes them is not objective about them at all.

The above says nothing one way or the other about what I think about other opinions on this topic from other posters or your opinion about other topics.  It doesn't even mean you shouldn't have an opinion or shouldn't share it on this topic (as if I could do anything about that one way or the other).  It means that everyone else should be extremely skeptical of anything you say about it.

Right off the bat we're off to a bad start because I never claimed to be objective or to lack any subjective feelings on the matter (there's only so much text or disclaimers I can realistically type while still communicating effectively without bloated text or making effective use of my time). And I never claimed that anyone who disagreed with me was part of a "cult" or just going off "nostalgia" in any of the actual arguments I made when discussion specific points in this discussion. I may have made such comments as snide remarks in passing elsewhere (perhaps even in the first post in this threat), but I never advanced them at any point as a reason to dismiss anyone's actual arguments throughout this discussion. And if I did, you are free to QUOTE me and shut me up about it.

But if you can't even provide a quote or specific (real & relevant) examples of me doing the things you claim I did, then I can do nothing about it. Because even if I was going to take all your points at face value, with stone cold logic and no hard feelings getting in the way, and grant you that I may have some personal faults in my part or flaws in my reasoning that need fixing, I can NOTHING about them if you can't provide details on specific things that I actually did to address them. And you aren't. You're just going off some a personal dislike of me or things you may have seen me post in passing at some other point without addressing the specific things and actual arguments that are being said right now in this specific discussion.

You even mentioned in passing a long time ago (year?) that you wouldn't bother reading my posts anymore or something to that effect during a similar interjection you made in another discussion to criticize me. But if you're not reading my posts or taking note of the ACTUAL argument I'm making at the time and are just going off your personal prejudices about me, then how am I supposed to take you assessments seriously, when you can't be bothered to actually read what I actually said before jumping in and arguing against it?

And note that the only specific example that you gave was something that I've said in passing (that I'm assuming that you didn't like, since it was a dismissive and derisive statement on my part*), but not an actual argument that I made against anything anyone said here.

*Yet not so dissimilar to passing comments I've seen others made about 3e, unified mechanics or any other thing that isn't strictly OSR

I'm saying it is pointless to argue with you about this.  I provided the previous post in an attempt to make clear why I believe that, but it is more addressed to other participants than you, because I don't expect any self-reflection to occur on your part based on my comments, which you are already dismissing.  It would be stupid of me to believe anything else.  Is that clear enough for you?

This is tangentially interesting as I've been comparing the differences between 1E/2E and 3E, as an extension of a discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

Part of the problem is that the 'action economy mechanic' isn't as well defined in 1E/2E as it is in 3E (move/standard/free/etc). I can't even find it in 1E, but thankfully 2E explains that 'you can move up to half your normal rate in a round, and still attack'.