|
Rand Brittain posted:What combat systems would you name that aren't grid-based, but that have what you'd call good movement systems?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:(back in Dogs chat) Following up on this since I finally got my Patreon community stuff: Before the Rebellion, Baker's playtest-ready Star Wars hack for DitV, does actually include a method for resolving one-and-done rolls... and I'm really not impressed. Depending on how many dice you have in a given stat you get two "Helping Dice" of varying sizes, in the usual steps. You roll your Helping Dice against 2d set by the GM; 6 for "normal" tasks, 4 or 8 for easy or hard, and 10 for very hard. So, on average... skill checks are "roll 2d6 or 2d8 vs 2d6". I've never been a fan of random target numbers, and for a system that doesn't directly use them anywhere else I'm kind of disappointed that this is the place they come up at. 2d versus a threshold is already enough random luck in the equation without having the target number move too. Increasingly wondering how much of this dice system I actually want to save for future projects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Following up on this since I finally got my Patreon community stuff: Before the Rebellion, Baker's playtest-ready Star Wars hack for DitV, does actually include a method for resolving one-and-done rolls... and I'm really not impressed. Depending on how many dice you have in a given stat you get two "Helping Dice" of varying sizes, in the usual steps. You roll your Helping Dice against 2d set by the GM; 6 for "normal" tasks, 4 or 8 for easy or hard, and 10 for very hard. So, on average... skill checks are "roll 2d6 or 2d8 vs 2d6". I've never been a fan of random target numbers, and for a system that doesn't directly use them anywhere else I'm kind of disappointed that this is the place they come up at. 2d versus a threshold is already enough random luck in the equation without having the target number move too. Doesn't the target number being random decrease the swinginess? Or is my conception of probability terrible?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:Doesn't the target number being random decrease the swinginess? Or is my conception of probability terrible? Some cursory anydice checks indicates it's a few percent closer to 50/50, so slightly but not especially meaningful. Plus you're introducing the psychological aspect of "I can't even guess what I need to roll", "I would have passed except for this easy task rolling a 12 to try and beat", etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Some cursory anydice checks indicates it's a few percent closer to 50/50, so slightly but not especially meaningful. Plus you're introducing the psychological aspect of "I can't even guess what I need to roll", "I would have passed except for this easy task rolling a 12 to try and beat", etc. In theory, with more dice being rolled, the outcome should be less swingy, in the sense that the results are more likely to clump around the mean. If it helps, you could think of it as "4d6 vs DC 14" instead of "2d6 vs 2d6," since a low roll on the DM's part is effectively the same as a bonus to your own roll. Logically, "2dX + 2dY" produces the same shaped distribution as "2dX - 2dY," and from my experimentation on anydice, you'll get the exact same outcomes with the exact same probabilities if you set a flat DC equal to the average value of 4dY, where Y is the DM's die. In other words, 2d6 vs 2d10 produces exactly the same distribution with the same odds of success as 2d6 + 2d10 vs DC 22. The only "problem" with converting it to a flat DC model is that it's unintuitive for you to get a "bonus" in the form of bigger die for taking on a harder check. That said, while the mean result will be more likely, the extreme outcomes, although rarer, will be even more extreme. In other words, you could miss the DC by up to 10 points if you roll snake eyes against boxcars, while a 2d6 against DC 7 will miss by "at most" 5. Mathematically, though, you could definitely convert it into a flat DC system, and doing so would make the system less intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
lightrook posted:In theory, with more dice being rolled, the outcome should be less swingy, in the sense that the results are more likely to clump around the mean. If it helps, you could think of it as "4d6 vs DC 14" instead of "2d6 vs 2d6," since a low roll on the DM's part is effectively the same as a bonus to your own roll. Logically, "2dX + 2dY" produces the same shaped distribution as "2dX - 2dY," and from my experimentation on anydice, you'll get the exact same outcomes with the exact same probabilities if you set a flat DC equal to the average value of 4dY, where Y is the DM's die. In other words, 2d6 vs 2d10 produces exactly the same distribution with the same odds of success as 2d6 + 2d10 vs DC 22. The only "problem" with converting it to a flat DC model is that it's unintuitive for you to get a "bonus" in the form of bigger die for taking on a harder check. I mean, I wouldn't even bother with "add the GM's dice to the player's side"; Baker has the GM dice pulled out of thin air to represent the difficulty. They don't come from anything else and they don't serve any purpose besides setting the difficulty, which could just be fixed. 2d(4, 6, 8, or 10) vs (5, 7, 9, or 11) gets close enough to the same odds while being easier to mentally interpret the odds & more intuitive to roll against. There's a few percent more chance of failure, which could be countered by dropping the difficulty set to (4, 6, 8, 10) as well, tilting things slightly in the players' favor. Considering how "balanced" odds get perceived as being against the player (see XCOM 50/50 shots), doing so might even be a good idea in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Chris Field's Black Tokyo. What have I ever done to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Some cursory anydice checks indicates it's a few percent closer to 50/50, so slightly but not especially meaningful. Plus you're introducing the psychological aspect of "I can't even guess what I need to roll", "I would have passed except for this easy task rolling a 12 to try and beat", etc. I'm not picking on you, but I hate this argument because it just coddles people for being absolutely hot garbage at really basic math. It's not the math's fault if you* don't understand it, and this is pretty much the pinnacle of a teachable moment. *Not you the poster, general you as in "one" but that makes you sound like a space alien.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 06:19
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Dogs's core conflict idea run on opposed buckets of dice? The execution sounds ever so slightly hacky because you need to derive your Helping Dice, but solving problems with opposed die rolls with the GM seems entirely in line with the original game. I mean, obviously this system too is inferior to one where you just roll 1d6 and succeed on 3+, but the world isn't ready for that yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:What have I ever done to you. Oh wait you said Horror, not Horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 10:15
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:What combat systems would you name that aren't grid-based, but that have what you'd call good movement systems? The immediate one that springs to mind is Spellbound Kingdoms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 10:54
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I'm not picking on you, but I hate this argument because it just coddles people for being absolutely hot garbage at really basic math. It's not the math's fault if you* don't understand it, and this is pretty much the pinnacle of a teachable moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 11:05
|
|
|
Doctor Zaius posted:Yeah there's some neat ideas in there, but it's still running into the fundamental issue of trying to mesh being a gear porn game and being a game where you're supposed to re-make your character on the regular. Yeah it was always baffling to me that the game didn't do the obvious thing of throwing out all the implants and customisation and instead write the setting so that you'd switch bodies to do specialised things. Should be dedicated morphs for going to the pub that are really great at drinking booze.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 11:11
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Did you quote the wrong bit? Feelsbad is absolutely something you should account for when designing your dice mechanics, and while I fully understand the math behind it if I rolled an 11 on 2d6 and then the gm rolled a 12 I would absolutely consider that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Dogs's core conflict idea run on opposed buckets of dice? The execution sounds ever so slightly hacky because you need to derive your Helping Dice, but solving problems with opposed die rolls with the GM seems entirely in line with the original game. You're right, yeah. The main difference being that everywhere else in the system, you get more control over what dice you're using and how based on what's on your sheet; here traits and relationships don't matter, just a single raw stat. Given that there are multiple character creation archetypes that sacrifice stat dice in favor of traits and/or relationships, doing it this way basically says "everyone is close to the same level of competence when there's opposition, but some people will be more competent without opposition and there's no way for the others to catch up since both parties would advance at roughly the same rate". (Which is an entirely different problem than just "the math is unintuitive and feels bad for the player", but on reviewing the mechanics to make sure I had it right I caught that bit.) in short, dice are hard
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 13:24
|
|
|
Siivola posted:High rolls aren't real, my dude. The natural 20 has no intrinsic value over the natural 19.  ohmygod
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Siivola posted:High rolls aren't real, my dude. The natural 20 has no intrinsic value over the natural 19. I heard that if you design for the hypothetical rational agent completely stripped of all human biases, you get a great game. (For a clientele of rational agents completely stripped of all human biases). Meanwhile, those fuckers at Firaxis or FFG or whatever are developing for actual humans, most of whom have human biases rather than going to a calculator and finding the results of mathematical proofs emotionally satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I'm not picking on you, but I hate this argument because it just coddles people for being absolutely hot garbage at really basic math. It's not the math's fault if you* don't understand it, and this is pretty much the pinnacle of a teachable moment. People (me) can have legitimate issues processing basic math, so I just want to point out your post is also hot garbage, irrespective of whether or not knowing predictable dice odds is good or bad in a game system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Meanwhile, those fuckers at Firaxis or FFG or whatever are developing for actual humans Beep boop I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:People (me) can have legitimate issues processing basic math, so I just want to point out your post is also hot garbage, irrespective of whether or not knowing predictable dice odds is good or bad in a game system. And I'd agree that the math should be as salient as possible and should include explanations. Greg Stolze is excellent at this by the standards of the genre and I'd actually like it if there was even more than that and common in all systems. I'm talking about games specifically avoiding good math because it gives people bad tummyfeels, as in the example I quoted. The actual example being discussed and then dismissing it is exactly what I mean because it looks a little unintuitive at first but is really more fair than having a target number, so instead of getting rid of the mechanic you should have a sidebar where you explain the math : it's actually pretty cool math that you can get the broad strokes of with just some simple examples and knowledge of first principles. Or the classic example of X-COM having different internal math than displayed probabilities because people just suck at understanding that a 92% percent chance really does mean failing 8 out of a 100 times. That's reinforcing people's mistaken judgement when it's actually a low stakes environment where they could try and have more realistic expectations. (And while it's a very human thing to not be good at math, we tend to suck at it, I stand by that the world be better if people had a better grasp on the fundamentals of basic reality.) I don't know why people are acting like this means I want Phoenix Command or I hate fun, that's some bullshit strawman. I like simple, elegant math and have always been an advocate, and I'm a huge fan of things like FFG's funny dice systems specifically because they dress up some pretty simple probabilities in a cool way that makes people more likely to engage with them. Also I just like cool symbols. I'm actually saying that math should be more transparent and try to teach itself, and maybe you could actually talk to me instead of making up another person to fight with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:And I'd agree that the math should be as salient as possible and should include explanations. Greg Stolze is excellent at this by the standards of the genre and I'd actually like it if there was even more than that and common in all systems. I would not generally hold up Greg Stolze as a good rules explainer, but I'm strongly biased by his work on the UA3 corebooks and haven't read much of his other work. Though my beef with those is admittedly unrelated to any math explanation. (I used to think he wrote most of the Delta Green rules, which are well laid out and explained. But every time I ask any of the devs who did what in the corebook, they start pointing fingers at each other, so I actually have no idea which parts he was responsible for). Xiahou Dun posted:I'm talking about games specifically avoiding good math because it gives people bad tummyfeels, as in the example I quoted. The actual example being discussed and then dismissing it is exactly what I mean because it looks a little unintuitive at first but is really more fair than having a target number, so instead of getting rid of the mechanic you should have a sidebar where you explain the math : it's actually pretty cool math that you can get the broad strokes of with just some simple examples and knowledge of first principles. Part of game design is finding a way to take the same probability and present it in a way that feels good to the player while preserving the underlying numeric balance. It's hard to tell what "feels" good, but that's part of playtesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:And I'd agree that the math should be as salient as possible and should include explanations. Greg Stolze is excellent at this by the standards of the genre and I'd actually like it if there was even more than that and common in all systems. The math being discussed here isn't really "basic" math to start with. It's gauging the odds of hitting a range of target numbers instead of a fixed one. If it's fixed you look at your bonuses and go "Okay I need to roll at least an X to beat it." it's maybe not mathematically "fairer" but it's predictable and helps speed along extended die rolling sequences like you would get in a combat or something. Having random TNs that fluctuate within a range means you're mathing out a bell curve of results and percentile odds at that point. "Okay so 20% of the time I need an X or better, 30% of the time I need a Y or better, etc." It's the sort of thing you're pulling out a sheet of paper to calculate on or bringing out tool assistance like AnyDice do get the odds done quickly. It's numerically slightly fairer, perhaps, but it is much harder to quickly parse with manual methods. Xiahou Dun posted:Or the classic example of X-COM having different internal math than displayed probabilities because people just suck at understanding that a 92% percent chance really does mean failing 8 out of a 100 times. That's reinforcing people's mistaken judgement when it's actually a low stakes environment where they could try and have more realistic expectations. (And while it's a very human thing to not be good at math, we tend to suck at it, I stand by that the world be better if people had a better grasp on the fundamentals of basic reality.) X-COM's notoriously hosed math isn't relevant here. It's a computer game that does the math for you and gives you a quick visual shorthand. X-COM distorting its odds in a way that effectively lies to you about the numbers in front of your face is semi-relevant in the broadest sense to being clear and communicative about odds, but that's not relevant to what we were discussing at all. Xiahou Dun posted:I don't know why people are acting like this means I want Phoenix Command or I hate fun, that's some bullshit strawman. I like simple, elegant math and have always been an advocate, and I'm a huge fan of things like FFG's funny dice systems specifically because they dress up some pretty simple probabilities in a cool way that makes people more likely to engage with them. Also I just like cool symbols. I'm not making up poo poo, you're not even addressing the original concerns SkyeAuroline had with the moving TNs: the emotional feeling of having a TN that's just out of your reach because the GM got luckier than you on dueling rolls. This has nothing to do with predictable odds, you just decided to go on a tangent about how dummies need "teachable moments" in their TTRPGs. Nuns with Guns fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Mar 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
Humans have demonstrably high rates of ambiguity aversion, which is probably relevant here. See the Ellsberg paradox. (Ellsberg is better known for other work, of course)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
I think discussions of maths feel and math correctness here tend to wander off a bit because the real problem is that probability is a horrible way to model difficulty of a static task. It works for combat because in a fight between two black belts, we either don't believe that the winner is predetermined or can't measure their skill precisely enough to identify that predetermination. It's only carried over to static tasks because the systems were unified later (remember the earliest D&D gave fixed percentage chances to static tasks) and because throwing dice is the main physically distinct action at the gaming table and it wouldn't really do to toss dice to indicate taking action and then not do anything with the numbers on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:And I'd agree that the math should be as salient as possible and should include explanations. Greg Stolze is excellent at this by the standards of the genre and I'd actually like it if there was even more than that and common in all systems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I think discussions of maths feel and math correctness here tend to wander off a bit because the real problem is that probability is a horrible way to model difficulty of a static task. It works for combat because in a fight between two black belts, we either don't believe that the winner is predetermined or can't measure their skill precisely enough to identify that predetermination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Yeah, it's rare that people even go "What am I introducing a random element for here (so I can choose the best one)", "What am I introducing a random element for here (so I can see if I actually need one)" is almost treated as blasphemy. this discussion always confused me because people will insist rolling dice is fun so rolling random skill checks is good and then not think critically about what happens when you roll a bunch of random dice. for example if you roll stealth checks frequently where success means "go further in" and failure means "get caught" every successive stealth check is just a penalty to the player and artificially increasing the difficulty
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Have you played griftlands? I have not! Did I unknowingly describe it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
From a game theorycrafting standpoint, what are the alternatives to rolling dice to discover the outcome of a character using a skill? I can think of at least two: you can have a system where characters always succeed at skills on their sheet; and you can have a resource pool from which you spend to succeed at skills, and eventually run low on resources and need to replenish them somehow. Anything else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:From a game theorycrafting standpoint, what are the alternatives to rolling dice to discover the outcome of a character using a skill? There's also the potentially hidden power level, which is kind of like the first alternative you mentioned, except you don't always know what the other contestant's power level is before committing to an attempt. (See Amber Diceless).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:From a game theorycrafting standpoint, what are the alternatives to rolling dice to discover the outcome of a character using a skill? I can think of at least two: you can have a system where characters always succeed at skills on their sheet; and you can have a resource pool from which you spend to succeed at skills, and eventually run low on resources and need to replenish them somehow. Anything else? There is a halfway point between the two, which I think was used by the old Conspiracy X, where skill rating is compared to difficulty, and if it's within a certain margin then a dice roll against a standard probability is required to succeed. This tends to be closer to how people think their skills work - most people can divide tasks into "I can easily do that", "That'll be a lot of work/effort", "I might not manage that" and "No chance". But that creates problems with hard boundary numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Yeah, it's rare that people even go "What am I introducing a random element for here (so I can choose the best one)", "What am I introducing a random element for here (so I can see if I actually need one)" is almost treated as blasphemy. However, pog boyfriend posted:people will insist rolling dice is fun so rolling random skill checks is good
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
mellonbread posted:I know from experience that some players do think of dice rolling as gameplay
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
i played Munchkin for the first time the other day. i knew it was going to suck but i still didn't quite anticipate it being "a traitor game, but the win condition all but requires at least two players with a history of conflict to collaborate"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Incidentally, this is why games like Munchkin and Monopoly stay in print. At least in Monopoly's case, people tend to forget that it's a miserable experience right up until they break it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
mellonbread posted:This is key. If the goal is to make results more predictable and avoid outlier results that make everyone miserable (the primary reason people suggest using normally distributed dice systems) then the real question isn't what dice to use, but whether to roll at all. What I like to do in circumstances like that is to shift focus: "you're not rolling to succeed, you're rolling to see how well you succeed."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
"you're rolling to make clicky-clacky noises and do first grade math for kicks" if you're going to condescend to people, don't do it by halves 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
I actually ran Kuro and we had a great time, partially because I bagged the entire PCs become Kami metaplot and turned it into more of a cyberpunk with spirits style of campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Incidentally, this is why games like Munchkin and Monopoly stay in print.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:From a game theorycrafting standpoint, what are the alternatives to rolling dice to discover the outcome of a character using a skill? Cards is the obvious one. Rocks-Paper-Scissors with skill being used as the tiebreaker is what I remember of the one LARP I did. Divinity OS did rocks papers scissors with skill determining how many times you had to win IIRC and while that is technically a computer game it's simple enough you can do it by hand. Wanderhome is total GM fiat - an action succeeds if it's low impact, it succeeds if its medium impact and the player spends a token, and fails if the GM thinks its too high impact for the scale of what the game is meant to cover. Outsourcing to a third party is like GM fiat but it's not really the GM's responsibility. Baron Munchausen uses a particularly elaborate form of this where all the players at the table vote on who won a given round. Physical or mental contests is another one. This one is particularly fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 19:47
|
|
