This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nDervish

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
Quote from: nDervish;1130575
Pre-declared spellcasting resolves this:  Everyone knows that the wizard is casting Fireball at point X.  The character who beat the wizard's initiative notices this in time to move clear of the blast zone.  The character whose initiative is worse than the wizard's reacts too slowly and gets fried.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130596
How does this logic even work?

Both PC warriors are charging into a melee. No one in the PC's side would be able to know that an enemy spellcaster is casting a spell, or when or where.

Both soldiers are rushing an enemy position.  No one on their side would be able to know that an enemy is preparing to throw a grenade, or when or where.

See how ridiculous that is?  If the enemy is taking physical actions to prepare an upcoming attack, you can see and respond to that, regardless of whether the actions are wild gesturing to cast a spell or the relatively more subdued act of pulling the pin on a grenade.  And we know from real-world data that people can sometimes (but not always) react to incoming grenades before they go off, so arguing that they can't have a similar possibility of reacting to spells being cast at them seems a bit off, unless you're interpreting spells as being cast instantaneously, rather than requiring some seconds of gestures and incantations before the spell takes effect (as the fluff of most RPGs says they require, even when the rules treat them as being instantaneous).

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130596
Even if they notice the wizard is casting something that still requires a Spellcraft (or is it called Arcana now?) check to even know what spell they're casting.

This part beats the hell out of me.  I haven't played D&D on the regular in decades, so I have no idea what their current rules on identifying spells look like.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130596
And the PC with the highest Initiative notices the wizard but the other doesn't? When did an Initiative roll become a Perception check?

There's a lot more to situational awareness than just perception.  One fighter might notice the guy in robes gesturing wildly (or one soldier might notice the guy grabbing a grenade and pulling out the pin) while the guy standing next to him is too focused on something else, even if the second guy is more perceptive and keenly aware of every tiny detail of the thing he's focused on.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130596
And how was he able to strike at someone in the melee if he's now avoiding the spell's blast radius covering that same area? How did the other one get there first if he hasn't had time to act that round?

I have no idea where you got this order of events, where one guy runs into the blast radius, takes a swing, and runs back out, while the second guy stands outside the blast radius doing nothing at all, and then the second guy gets hit.

Let me spell it out for you, step-by-step:

1) Wizard declares that he's casting a fireball at the space where two opposing fighters are currently standing and begins the process of casting it.

2) Everyone rolls initiative.  Fighter 1 gets initiative 76.  The wizard gets initiative 67.  Fighter 2 gets initiative 18.

3) On initiative 76, fighter 1, seeing that the wizard is in the process of casting a fireball in his direction, moves out of the blast radius.

4) On initiative 67, the wizard finishes casting his fireball.  Fighter 1 is not affected because he is no longer in the blast radius.  Fighter 2 is affected because he has not yet reacted to the spell being cast.

5) On initiative 18, fighter 2 does whatever, assuming he's still up and fighting.

Note that fighter 1 does not get any extra actions as you seem to have presumed ("how was he able to strike at someone in the melee if he's now avoiding the spell's blast radius covering that same area?").

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130596
None of this really addresses the actual scenario. It's just jumping through hoops to justify initiative and favor characters with high initiative rolls by giving them extra abilities, like evading area effects that took effect after they were already supposed to have moved into the blast area, or interrupting casters who aren't even within melee range.

He's not "evading area effects that took effect after they were already supposed to have moved into the blast area", he moved out of the blast area while the spell was still being cast, before it took effect (because the casting was not yet complete).  In the modern-day equivalent, he moved out of the blast area while the opponent was pulling the pin on his grenade and throwing it, not after it had already exploded.

You seem to be viewing all actions as happening instantaneously when they are declared, and my point is that some actions take time (casting a spell, or pulling the pin on a grenade, throwing it, and waiting for the fuse to run out before it goes off), which allows people to react to - or, yes, potentially interrupt - the lead-up to the final event before it happens, whether that reaction is to leave the fireball's blast radius, or trying to pick up a grenade and throw it back before it goes off.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130470
The issue is that intent aside initiative (particularly individual initiative) does tend to play out like characters frozen in time in practice, despite the books saying otherwise and claiming that actions are assumed to take place simultaneously. I have seen characters evade a fireball blast because they hadn't taken their action yet so they weren't within the blast radius when the fireball went off, yet an ally standing right beside them at the beginning of the round did take the fireball blast cuz they "won" initiative so they already had time to move into melee before the fireball happened.

Pre-declared spellcasting resolves this:  Everyone knows that the wizard is casting Fireball at point X.  The character who beat the wizard's initiative notices this in time to move clear of the blast zone.  The character whose initiative is worse than the wizard's reacts too slowly and gets fried.

I've also seen systems which address this sort of thing by saying that whoever has the worst initiative goes first, but anyone with better initiative is able to interrupt actions by someone with worse initiative.  So, again, the wizard casts and the character with better initiative can interrupt his action to move to a safe place, while the character with worse initiative than the wizard does not have that option.  But that method is more complex and easily leads to sequencing confusion when you're four interrupts deep and have to remember who interrupted who interrupted who interrupted...

And before you say "but none of that is simultaneous!", that objection ignores the duration of actions.  If casting a Fireball spell takes, say, 5 seconds, and moving clear of the blast zone takes 2 seconds, then there is time for someone with sufficient situational awareness to notice that you're casting (i.e., better initiative) and then move clear concurrently with the casting itself.

Quote from: Altheus;1130472
I like the idea ao sitting everyone down in initiative order and going around asking what people are going to do from low to high and then resolving things from high to low. I'm not sure how effective or fun this would be.

I've seen this used (both as a RAW suggestion and as a table convention) in systems with fixed initiative orders, such as the Strike/DEX Ranks in most BRP variants.  I have a hard time seeing it work well in systems with rolled initiative (unless you only roll once at the start of the session and that order holds for the entire evening's play) because you'd constantly be playing musical chairs.

Quote from: ffilz;1130505
Oh, one more I didn't like, but I was just observing and not playing, and I'm not sure it was being run right. I watched a couple people playing Melee, where the faster guy always got to run around his opponent and attack him from behind. That seemed really absurd (given that it wasn't some kind of super hero or super martial arts game).

That's a common way to not run Melee right, which usually seems to result from taking the idea of initiative from other games and apply it to Melee, which actually has two different initiative systems working side-by-side.

First, there is rolled initiative, which is a straight d6-v-d6 side initiative system.  The side that rolls higher wins initiative for the round, but that only means that they get to choose whether they want to move first or second.  As you observed, in 95% of cases, you'll want to choose to move last, so that you can flank or get behind your foes.  But this is only movement at this point.

Second, after everyone on both sides has moved, attacks are made in order of descending DEX.  So the guy with high DEX does always get to attack first, but he may or may not be in optimal position to make that attack, depending on whether his side moved first or second, which in turn depends on which side won initiative for the round.

(Another thing they did wrong is that Melee has strong engagement/ZOC, so that, once you're adjacent to an enemy and in one of that enemy's front hexes, you can only move by making a one-hex "shift", similar to the D&D3.x 5-foot step, so you can't run around to get behind your opponent at that point in any case.)

Quote from: jhkim;1130523
I think there's some talking past about different mechanics here. There are a number of different possible initiative systems

(1) Individual rolled initiative like D&D
(2) Fixed action order like HERO or GURPS, going in order of character stat
(3) Group rolled initiative like older D&D
(4) Arbitrary order like clockwise among players, usually in groups
(5) Rerolled initiative like Savage Worlds, where order is randomly determined every round
(6) Declare all actions, then resolve actions - like RuneQuest

(7) Individual initiative bids each round, like EABA2

In EABA2, at the start of each combat round, everyone secretly bids for their initiative and then acts in descending order, with ties resolved as simultaneous actions.  Anyone who makes no initiative bid goes on initiative 0.

So, what's to stop you from bidding a million for initiative every round?  Because you're rushing your action, your initiative bid is applied as a penalty to all actions taken that round.  Bid 2, and you're doing everything at -2.  Most of the time, you'll want to bid 0 initiative, then, to avoid taking penalties unless you either completely outclass your opponent (making the penalties irrelevant) or you really, really need to go first (forcing you to eat the penalties), and even then, you want to bid as low as you can while still beating the opposition's bid.

EABA1 also had an interesting twist on methods #1/5/6.  You first declared the general type of action you wanted to take that round (e.g., "I'll shoot" - not who you're shooting or any other details) and then make an unmodified skill roll for the skill that will be used for your action, which functions as your initiative roll.  The logic behind this being that an expert will generally be able to act more quickly than a novice, in addition to more effectively.

Is D&D still relevant to the market/hobby?  Sure.  Despite all the others that have come out over the decades, D&D remains the best-selling, most-played, and most-imitated RPG of all time.  If you add in its direct imitators (Pathfinder/Starfinder, OSR, every "OGL d20 System" product, etc.), I would be shocked if D&D doesn't still account for an absolute majority of all RPG purchases, player numbers, and play hours.

Is D&D still relevant to me personally?  Nah, not really, other than as a lingua franca of RPG discussions.  There are so many other systems that I like better that I have a hard time seeing D&D ever coming in as a game I regularly play again.  (And, since you mentioned it in the OP:  No, GURPS is not one of those systems.)

Quote from: Shasarak;1130356
Has anyone tried Hackmaster?  It uses a count up system where every action takes a certain number of seconds so you are never really "frozen" in place.  You declare your action, act on your count, declare your next action, if something happens you can change actions, move a certain speed per second.  It really forces you to concentrate on what is going on because there is always something happening.

I've read Hackmaster, but not actually played it.  I have, however, used similar count-up initiative systems in the past, and really liked how they worked.  They also seem to run faster in my experience, despite being more complex than "conventional" initiative systems on the surface.

The main reason I don't use that style in everything I run is that most systems aren't geared for that level of flexibility in actions and I haven't felt like putting in the effort to find ways to, e.g., take a system which assumes that all actions take the same time ("one round") to complete and make some actions take less time than other actions without completely unbalancing things.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187
I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me.

Interesting.  I see it pretty much entirely the opposite way around - Alice: "Attack orc #1".  Bob: "Attack orc #1".  Charlie: "Attack orc #1".  DM: "Orc #1 falls over dead".  Evan: "Attack orc #2"... with everyone distributing their attacks perfectly optimally because their characters are able to instantaneously respond to any change in the circumstances of the fight feels far more gamey to me than to require players to take the risk that some attacks may be wasted on beating an already-bloody corpse if everyone focus-fires a single foe.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187
Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

Sure, quantizing time in a series of rounds does introduce differences from the real world, but, even with eyes, it takes time to adapt to those evolving circumstances.  If you're ferociously raining blows down on orc #1 and your buddy takes its head off, you can't just redirect your next swing to orc #2 and continue raining the same ferocity upon the new target.  It interrupts your rhythm, you have to check and redirect your swing, you need a moment to adapt to the evolving circumstances.  Which, in game terms, is "new action in the next round", because rounds are the smallest division of time available.  (Obviously, this makes more sense with GURPS 1-second rounds or most current games' 5- or 6-second rounds.  In the 1-minute rounds of early D&D editions, there would be plenty of time to change your action, probably multiple times.)

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187
But there's simply no way that you couldn't adapt your melee attacks and positioning to swing at an adjacent opponent if the one you were facing gets their head chopped off by someone else. It's not like melee combat involves making one single swing and that's it, but rather it's a series of thrust and parries, pivoting from side to side, trying to look for an opening, and all of that gets abstracted to an attack roll for rules purposes.

Yes, and you've made your series of thrusts and parries and been looking for an opening to attack your original target.  When you switch targets, you need to start that whole process over again (*cough*next round*cough*), you can't just say "orc #1 left his right knee open, but his head got lopped off, so I'll stab orc #2 in the right knee" and expect the second orc to have left the same opening.

Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Hybrid Settings
« on: May 17, 2020, 08:36:27 AM »
Quote from: David Johansen;1130258
Anyhow, Warhammer 40000 is a bit of a mashup game itself: fantasy tropes, scifi tropes, and British comic dystopia.

And if that's not putting enough mashups in your mashups, someone came up with Dungeons: The Dragoning 40,000, 7th Edition.  ("Roleplaying in the grim darkness of the Great Wheel")

Quote from: nDervish;1130037
As jhkim pointed out, the modifier ranges you used are about a third less than the standard deviations of each roll (+/-2 vs. SD 2.96 for 3d6, +/-4 vs. SD 5.77 for 1d20), so it's no surprise that the results would be tilted in your favor, but still pretty random.  If you want the results to go 99% "the right way", then you need to use larger modifiers, so that the results will be shaped primarily by the modifiers, rather than by the randomness of the roll.

If you use 3d6 + 20 against random opponents rolling 3d6 with modifiers from -2 to +2 you'll win about 100% of contests
If you use d20 + 20 against random opponents rolling d20 with modifiers from -4 to +4 you'll win about 100% of contests

Quote from: mightybrain;1130038
Ah, the old 50 strength ploy. Even the mighty Tarrasque only has a +10!

Ehm, no, I'm not talking about "50 strength".  I'm not talking about D&D (or any particular system) at all.  I'm talking about the raw numbers and how they compare:  If you want to ensure that a more-capable opponent is (nearly-)guaranteed to defeat a less-capable opponent, then you use modifiers on the roll which are large enough that the modifier will be more significant than the likely variance in the raw dice results.  How you get the modifiers which are large enough to overcome the variance in the raw die result is a question of how the dice mechanic is designed, which was supposed to be the original point of this thread, before it got bogged down in D&D Strength modifiers.

But, as I mentioned in my first reply in this thread, there are other (not-D&D) systems out there which do use modifiers large enough to make the raw die result all but irrelevant.  For example, there's Ars Magica, which can see you rolling 1d10+20 against someone rolling 1d10+5 - unless you're in a "stress" situation (in which case those are exploding 1d10 rolls), there's no need to even roll at all because it's not possible for the lower-skilled person to roll high enough to beat the higher-skilled.  Whether you consider that a bug or a feature is a matter of personal taste (I've gone back and forth on it myself), but it is an option for how to design your dice mechanic, even if it's not the option that D&D5e chose to take.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1130127
System mastery is a real thing, despite you Story-banging lollies that troll this site.

Thanks for the laugh!  You're making a totally unfounded connection there.

Fate is a darling of the "story-banging lollies", yet can involve considerable system mastery around how to handle aspects, compels, and the Fate Point economy.

B/X D&D can be played successfully in OSR style with absolutely zero rules mastery (or even knowledge of the rules on the player side) whatsoever.

Rules mastery absolutely is a real thing, but there are those with no taste for it, even among those of us who don't want any "story" in our RPGs aside from the one recounting the session after it's over.  I want my players to do things "because it's what my character would do in that situation", not "because it would make the best story", nor "because it's the most mechanically optimal solution".

Quote from: JeffB;1130060
I just looked at my copy of Exemplars & Eidolons- no OGL. IDK about the rest of his games

Some of his earliest stuff (I think it's just the Red Tide setting and associated products, but I could be wrong about that) was based on Labyrinth Lord and included an OGL page.  Once he dropped the LL references, the OGL statements also disappeared.

Quote from: Orphan81;1130090
Kevin is probably one of the most successful OSR people in the industry, so much so his content is popular among NON-OSR fans who purchase it.

I don't run/play any "class and level" RPGs, but, whenever I see that Kevin has posted a new project on Kickstarter, I go and pledge first, then read the description to find out what I just threw money at.  I have never once reduced or regretted a pledge for one of his projects, despite backing them sight unseen.  The sandboxing tools included in all his products are that good, even outside of the context they were originally meant for.

Quote from: Orphan81;1130090
He's loved both here and at The Big Purple.

This is perhaps the greatest proof that Kevin can do anything.

Quote from: mightybrain;1129953
If you use 3d6 + 2 against random opponents rolling 3d6 with modifiers from -2 to +2 you'll win about 65% of contests
If you use d20 + 4 against random opponents rolling d20 with modifiers from -4 to +4 you'll win about 65% of contests

The only real difference is that you'll get more draws with 3d6. But neither begins to approach the 99% you'd get without randomness.

As jhkim pointed out, the modifier ranges you used are about a third less than the standard deviations of each roll (+/-2 vs. SD 2.96 for 3d6, +/-4 vs. SD 5.77 for 1d20), so it's no surprise that the results would be tilted in your favor, but still pretty random.  If you want the results to go 99% "the right way", then you need to use larger modifiers, so that the results will be shaped primarily by the modifiers, rather than by the randomness of the roll.

If you use 3d6 + 20 against random opponents rolling 3d6 with modifiers from -2 to +2 you'll win about 100% of contests
If you use d20 + 20 against random opponents rolling d20 with modifiers from -4 to +4 you'll win about 100% of contests

Quote from: Jamfke;1129920
My question is, is this too far out as a space travel alternative?

Too far out?  How could an excuse to say "Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" be too far out?

Granted, you're talking about instantaneous teleportation rather than superluminal flight through hyperspace, but, still, it sounds like pretty mainstream FTL trappings to me.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129923
I've often wondered why there's usually only one method of FTL in most settings. I think it's be neat if different races/factions had different methods of FTL. Like a race with Stargates, another with Fold tech, and a third uses Hyperdrive. Give each method benefits and drawbacks to balance them out.

That's one of the things I really liked about the (computer) conquer-the-galaxy game Sword of the Stars.  They had six races/factions (I believe seven with all expansions) and each one had its own distinct method of FTL travel, with different tradeoffs for speed, flexibility, etc.

Mongoose Traveller 1st edition had a page with three or four alternate FTL methods (aside from the Traveller default of one-week jump drives), but the assumption seemed to be that you'd just pick one for your game, not use all of them in the same setting.

Quote from: Premier;1129935
Suggestion: if you're trying to come up with an "explanation" in order to make your world building more, let's say, "plausible" or "realistic", than make sure it doesn't have anything that obviously sounds implausible by going against facts we know to be true. Faster-than-light travel, teleportation... whatever goes. It might not exist in real life, but it's sci-fi, so the reader or player will be willing to buy it. However, when your explanation includes the statement that "the probability of porting into a solid object is high if you don't spend the necessary time doing the calculations", that's much harder to sell, since it goes against established facts that we do know.

Going by this particular estimate, only 0.0000000000000000000042% of the universe's total volume is occupied by matter. But even if someone doesn't know that specifically, any casual sci-fi fan will be aware that space is, in fact, vastly and mind-boggingly empty with only tiny collections of matter located very, very far from each other. So, in fact, the chances teleporting into a solid object should be very, VERY low.

Even so, I don't have any issue with the OP's description because you're not going to be teleporting to an arbitrary random point anywhere in the universe.  If you're going someplace worth making the trip, then you probably want to arrive somewhere in the general vicinity of a substantial quantity of matter.  As long as the error in your arrival point isn't more than a few thousand km, then there's a non-negligible chance of arriving at a location which intersects the substantial quantity of matter you had intended to visit.

However, that said, this intersects with the recent "TPK for one character's mistake" thread.  After one or two incidents of ships misjumping into planets and causing massive civilian casualties, FTL will very quickly be either banned or restricted to only arrivals far enough out in space to ensure that you don't arrive in the space occupied by anything of consequence, purely for the sake of keeping planetary populations safe, even if interstellar travelers are willing to accept that risk for themselves.

I know nothing about Lion & Dragon, other than that it's by Pundit, but I've been an Ars Magica fan on and off for quite some time.  So I don't know whether L&D is the game you want, but Ars Magica almost certainly isn't.  It tends to run pretty heavily towards the higher end of the crunch spectrum and the magi start out substantially more powerful than the other characters[1], and they only go up (and up... and up...) from there.  As in, a sufficiently-old Flambeau (the fire specialist house) magus could plausibly make up a spell on the spot which would cause the entire city of Paris to simultaneously burst into flames.  (In the course of a typical campaign, the PCs are unlikely to get that powerful, though.  They'd have to actually invent and learn the spell instead of making it up on the fly.)

Another game in similar vein that you might want to take a look at is Kevin Crawford's recently-released Wolves of God, which should fit on both low-crunch and rare-magic, although it may be too England-centric and assumes that PCs are generally cooperative with the church rather than opposed to it.

[1] As mentioned in an earlier comment, that's a core design point - characters are deliberately divided into "magi", "companions", and "grogs" with each category less powerful than the one before, which is balanced by having each player make characters of all three categories and then switch off between their characters from one adventure to the next.

Quote from: Pat;1129479
In other words, without God telling them to behave people are naturally evil, and anybody doesn't believe in God is an amoral monster.

I find that an abhorrent point of view. Worse than slavery, in many ways.

Agreed.  The statement you quoted immediately brought this to mind, with the minor tweak of "what's to stop me from raping my slaves all I want?":

Quote from: Pat;1129485
Probability matters, but the mechanics around the probabilities often matter more. For instance, do you have to roll every time a skill comes up, or do you automatically succeed barring exceptional circumstances? Is your chance based almost entirely on your raw aptitude and training matters very little (AD&D's method), or the other way around? When you roll, under what circumstances, what contributes to the roll, and what success and failure mean can matter a lot more than the odds.

Another "system around the rolls" factor which can matter more than the dice probabilities is the range of dice results vs. the range of potential modifiers.  Which is kind of what the "fighter vs. kobold" discussion is getting at.  The reason the kobold has a significant chance of out-muscling the STR 20 fighter is because the die roll has a range of 20 points, but the difference in their STR modifiers is only 9 points.  If, instead, you added the actual STR scores, then the fighter is rolling d20+20 and the kobold is rolling d20+6, a 14-point difference in their modifiers, which makes the fighter far more likely to win.

And then you've got games like Ars Magica, which resolves everything on d10 rolls and it's not that uncommon to see characters with modifiers of +20 or +30 on some rolls, which completely outstrips the range of randomness and guarantees success at simpler tasks, or victory in opposed rolls against marginally-skilled (say, +10) opponents.  Some people dislike games which do this, usually out of ideas of "fairness" or "it should be possible for anything to happen", but it does neatly resolve things like "do you have to roll every time a skill comes up, or do you automatically succeed barring exceptional circumstances?" or "how the hell can a STR 6 kobold out-arm-wrestle a STR 20 fighter?" by allowing for situations where the modifiers are big enough to only allow one possible outcome.

What I'm using at the moment is ye olde percentile dice, mainly because I'm currently running Mythras, which is BRP family.  I'm not really a big fan of "flat" dice curves in general, but I do like the classic BRP skill improvement mechanics (which I'm using, rather than doing it "the Mythras way"), which are only really implemented for percentile.  (Although there is a modified d20-based version of the advancement mechanic used in Pendragon, but I particularly dislike d20-based resolution, probably because of its strong association with D&D and, thus, with class-and-level and zero-to-demigod systems.)

As for what I actually like in dice mechanics, I seem to be a serious outlier - in most of these kinds of discussions, a lot of people will generally say "I like Dice Mechanic X because the exact probabilities are transparent", but I consider that a bug, not a feature.  Pre-4th edition Shadowrun is one of my favorite dice mechanics, mainly for the clear implicit model of complex situations (the number of dice rolled solely reflects your ability, the target number solely reflects the difficulty of the task, and the number of successes solely reflects the quality of the result), but also in part because very few people can look at "8 dice vs. target number 4" and immediately know the exact percentage chance of getting any specific number of successes - but anyone can easily see that, most of the time, you'll get roughly 4 of them.  This feels more true-to-life to me, given that, IRL, if I'm shooting at a target on the range, I don't know that I have a 37.48672% chance of a bullseye, but I do know that I'll usually hit within about 5 cm/2 inches of the center.  (Made-up numbers, not an actual statement of my personal ability with firearms.)

I also like EABA's "roll some number of d6s, and keep the 3 highest" mechanic, which pushes average results higher with increased skill, but doesn't change the range of possible results as skill levels become arbitrarily high.

And I've lately been really liking what I've read of the dice mechanic in Early Dark, where you roll a handful of d10s (usually 6-8 for starting characters), group them into sets such that the sum of each set is no more than a limit based on your base attributes (usually a limit of 7-8 for starting characters), and then each set is one effect from your attempt with the power of that effect being based on the number of dice in the set.  Unfortunately, because there's significant strategy in how you want to group your sets (lots of small sets to create many minor effects vs. big sets for big effects), it's not suitable for solo play, and seems unlikely to work that well for online play either (because, in an opposed roll situation, the other person's dice rolls are hidden information until after you're done grouping them and simultaneously reveal your sets), so I doubt I'll be able to actually play it until the covidpocalypse has passed.  But, here again, good luck seeing the percentages in that mechanic without using a calculator.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50