All right so I feel like this is a topic that should be made, because pretty much every time a diceroll comes up for something serious people complain and the complaints spill into OOC and people get upset. Flat d20's just don't cut it in a system where we can pull out our stats and see what we're good at.
My proposal is this: If you get into a situation where you need a contested dice-roll, roll 1d100 and try to get lower than your score in the relevant stat you need for the type of roll. If neither party rolls under, the one closest to success wins. If both parties pass their check, the one who passes it with a higher degree of success wins.
So for example, let's say one person gets into a race with someone else and one has 60 celerity compared to the other's 30. If the 30-cel person gets a 20 and the 60-cel person gets a 40, the 60 would still be the winner, because they have a higher degree of success comparatively.
I feel a more unified way of doing rolls outside of combat would make things much smoother for everybody and this way seems like it could work.
Any opinions/ideas/suggestions?
This... Honestly doesn't sound bad at all. I've always liked using stats mixed into my rolls, even with the D20. (Although it was usually just like a DnD +mod roll.) But people can just lie and say they're god-tier in their stats.
Maybe we could have some way of figuring out how to add a reasonable roll modifier to dice rolls, like I mentioned earlier. Although that would require more coding on Dev's end...
I feel like it rolling a die, adding 1/10th of the chosen stat, and listing result and chosen stat would work.
Then people can't roll Strength and say it's their luck or something, and you'd still get a good comparison of results.
I'd think of it as saying something like "(RP) Ren Brown rolls 1d20+STR; 4 = 4". It'd just show which stat you rolled with, and of course, you can roll normally without one too. This would eliminate any chance of someone lying for it.
To be honest, I feel like rolling d20s in this system for conflicts are an extremely poor solution, unless players confirm their stats with each other before they start using rolls. Even then, there are players who will not rely on a d20 to determine their character's fate, and we are inevitably going to see some situation where there's an argument over using d20s or not. (And no, (not) using d20s has nothing to do with one's roleplay ability)
However, if I were to place in a system like this, I would just have something that goes (1d20 + Stat), without showing the stat's exact number.
Under no circumstance will I aknowledge that someone with half my celerity can outrun me if we're in same condition.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Besides, forming some sort of a unified system is incredibly redundant. When you roleplay with good roleplayers, a solution as to what the diceroll will look like and what will it affect is reached very, very easily. In situations where it will prove to be necesary to roleplay with the not so good roleplayers and you'll have a hard time agreeing on a decent result without using the supplied combat system, you can refer to a third party. (or just not bother RPing with them, da?)
As for pure stat comparison, in my opinion and the way I've been doing it since I can remember, dice rolling is only relevant if the scores are apart at best at ten points.
To summarize, no, unless Dev gets around to implementing rolls that check againts stats mechanicaly without revealing them, it should always remain at discresion of those that are roleplaying together.
I agree with Sarin, to a point.
I don't like how randomness determines your character's proficiencies, but at the same time, that's the game. If you're a Level 1 fully grown adult who got beaten in an arm-wrestling contest by a Level 60 grade-schooler, that's one highly trained little kid and you'll just have to freak out about it in IC.
"[url=http://neus-projects.net/viewtopic.php?p=9951#p9951 Wrote:Sarinpa1 ยป Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:21 pm[/url]"]Under no circumstance will I acknowledge that someone with half my celerity can outrun me if we're in same condition.
There is one question that always seems to be in my mind when things like this are brought up: should you actively punish the roleplayer for not partaking in the meta? If I had a level 1 Felidae who took part in in running contests, managing to beat quite a fair amount of people in the process, lose to the unfit level 50 Human, just because they have 8 more CEL (making a base 16 CEL) than the Felidae? Not only that, but also lose to a great total amount of PCs just because the stats said so?
I've always been a fan of roleplaying things out instead relying on stats or rolls, because I think those methods are pretty silly. It removes (the already limited) power from the roleplayers to decide on what would happen, which could lead to an ultimately better story, instead of falling back on rolling a die or comparing stats.
Yet, out of the choices presented, rolling with modifiers might be the most "balanced" one. It still adds a bit of randomization to the mix on who will win while appeasing those who like to directly involve their stats into rolls. Adding anything more might make things messy and detract from the experience.
I think leaving RP entirely up to the luck of the dice is mostly stupid. You have stats for a reason, so why not use them?
How about a way to automatically print the requested stat in chat? Thus the problem of people 'lying' is eliminated.
IE:
Ren Browns STR stat is: 3