(07-26-2024, 06:33 PM)Snake Wrote: Out of everything suggested, it'd be fun if we could run stat-based dices. It would be a positive addition to the game that doesn't take a lot of effort, and of course, can be optional.

A simple "STR-based Dice", or "CEL-based Dice", or "DEF-based Dice" (you get my hitch) for specific situations would make a lot, LOT of events more fun, and draw all players to a standard which is the game's very own mechanics, rather than having to adhere to different eventmin/player rulebooks.

We already have the stat distribution things set, so it'd be wise to use it.

(07-26-2024, 12:42 PM)Turadis Wrote: I like this! Although I mostly like it for the sake of getting more detailed expressions of a character for event and IC conflict stuff. I can take or leave the extra exploration mechanics, personally.

Some people like dice for events, some people dislike them. I do like them, but I agree that them feeling too 'swingy' is pretty disappointing. It can be solved by only letting people with reasonably justifiable proficiency roll at all, but then for things like perception, everybody has senses. So it's not a one size fits all solution. All that said, I don't necessarily want to see a system like this become the only accepted standard--But options are nice.

Due to the influence of D&D and similar d20 RPG systems, the standard of d20+Skill Modifier has been widely accepted as a default means of handling dice based skill checks. There are multiple alternatives I'd like to put forward, since as a big RPG guy, it's a subject I've given a lot of thought. I don't regard any of these as 'best', since what's best for a system is entirely dependent on it's design goals, and the fiction you want the dice to convey.

(Rank) dice pool: Rather than getting a bigger modifier for more skill investment, you roll more dice; usually d6s or d4s, and calculate the sum to get your check result. Multiple dice have a weighted distribution towards averages, leading to far more consistant results. This can be desirable if avoiding 'swinginess' is a priority, and if you want characters with greater skill investment to beat characters with lesser investment very reliably but not with total certainty. Dice pools aiming to get a certain number of 'successes' (by counting how many dice roll over a target number) tend to also have a similar distribution, but are more likely to result in a tie in an opposed check. Depending on how ties are resolved, that might be desirable.

d20+Mod (Flat): The d20 style most people experienced with D&D 5e would be familiar with. It's simple d20+Mod, but where the mod number usually ranges around 1 to 10. As a result, even completely untrained characters can still beat masters relatively often, while the odds are still firmly in the master's favor. It's ideal if you want to always give characters a chance to contribute or provide upsets while still rewarding skill investment.

d20+Mod (Tall): d20+Mod, but where skill investment can lead to very large modifiers, as seen in earlier editions of D&D and Pathfinder. Mods can easily be higher than +10, and highly invested characters may start looking at mods in the high +20s and +30s. This leads to a scenario where untrained characters have effectively no chance against masters, but where swingy results less likely to result in ties can still happen in contests between equally invested characters.

There are definitely others I could go on about, with many weird distributions. The big advantage of using digital dice is that you don't need to be too concerned with doing the math in your head, so you can work with weirdly specific or elaborate systems. Most types revolve around a certain relationship with the idea of consistency, though.

Consistency is a good design goal to aim for when you're looking to avoid most scenarioes where people are frustrated by being outperformed by obviously less skilled characters in opposed checks ( If failure in a non-opposed check is either unreasonable or uninteresting, they probably shouldn't be rolling to begin with. ) But once that becomes a desirable goal, it's also probably time to think seriously on if you want randomness to be a factor at all. Swinginess and random failure chance is generally viewed negatively, but it's also the reason that dice are used in RPGs to begin with. An underdog upset is a memorable moment for heroic fantasy--And letting an objective mediator like luck decide contests helps to curtail arguments about conflict resolution, and generally results in much faster play. 

I see dice systems with skill modifiers as a helpful middle ground between the two concerns. They offer both the opportunity for mostly consistant results, while still allowing the opportunity for dramatic swings in the plot alongside generally expidating gameplay.

All of this is mostly just one semi-tangential element to the main post that I felt inspired to talk about. I might come back and talk more about skill concepts another time.