|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 12:17PM
#11
|
|
|
While the d20 is pretty central to D&D's identity, I wouldn't have a problem with moving to, say, a 3d6 system for task resolution to create the aforementioned bell curve.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 12:53PM
#12
|
|
|
I like exploding 2d10 myself.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 1:16PM
#13
|
|
|
While the d20 is pretty central to D&D's identity, I wouldn't have a problem with moving to, say, a 3d6 system for task resolution to create the aforementioned bell curve.
I personally dislike bellcurve dice systems because I like being able to know that a +1 is always a +1. Using a d20, that plus one is ALWAYS an increase of 5%. Every time, no matter what the base value I had before applying that +1 was. In a 3d6 system, the actual effect of the +1 changes depending on how high the base value was.
Bellcurves work best when you want outlying outcomes to be more uncommon, with the base expected outcome being the most common. Some might argue that that would be why they desire a system like that for the game, but in my opinion, since the d20 rolls in D&D don't care about margin of success, this isn't needed. If the DC for something is, say, 15, it doesn't matter if you roll 15 or 20 or 314. I guess where I differ from the OP is the difference in perception we have between seeing the roll being an additive to your base value (OP), and seeing the roll as, essentially, a precentile roll derived from the comparison of the DC and your base value (me). I'm fine with the range of the d20 because I view it as nothing more than a determination of precentage, and don't really feel "cheated by randomness" or anything if the roll says I didn't succeed cause, hey, I already knew the odds.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 2:39PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
"Just add the word "chaotic" or "chaos" to something, and people will start demanding more and more tables"
Is that true? Funny.
As far as Warhammer 40k goes it is.
"being chaotic isn't necessarily random"
I agree, but don't think it's about emotions either. I think Law v Chaos is about authority who gets to decide things.
Arguably. That's sorta built into the "rational law and emotional chaos" model, though.
Remember Blood Bowl.
My ogre centre, an 8' tall 800 lbs warrior born and bred, jogged ten feet and moved to slam a goblin into dirt (a goblin!) and ended up in the hospital because the goblin hurt him.
I say no more.
There's a difference between that and a random encounter table. The encounter table covers time when the PCs are doing things in the dungeon other than looking for the next encounter, assuming the dungeon is big enough. Kobold Hall isn't, but the crashed rocketship from Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 10:15PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
We can safely assume that monsters will be given a level/hit dice that represents their threat relative to a PC of the same level. Lowering the randomness incumbent in combat will make predesigned encounters more reliable in presenting the exact amount of challenge the DM wishes. As a side effect, the specific monsters which can effectively challenge the PCs at any given PC level will be narrowed. Conversely, increasing the randomness incumbent in combat will broaden the specific monsters which can effectively challenge the PCs at any given PC level at the price of making predesigned encounters less reliable in presenting the exact amount of challenge the DM wishes. So the way I see it, lowering the randomness is good for DMs that prefer to predesign encounters; increasing the randomness is good for DMs that present a sandbox. I DM in a sandbox. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 10:30PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2008
|
Blood bowl's randomness was what made the game. The entire point was to minimise and mitigate risk. If your ogre seriously failed his tackle vs a goblin, with all his advantages and you rerolling it, then it was an exceedingly rare event (1/1296). For him to then be wounded by it makes it that much rarer again.
Games where success or failure become guaranteed are when gaming gets boring.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 11:04PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Dec 19, 2010
|
I agree with the vast majority of what's been said since my last post.
I'm terribly surprised nobody jumped on this...
I said my ogre, a professional blood bowl player, by the way, not warrior, moved to tackle an opponent, failed, and got hurt. I'd say the goblin dodged out of the way and made the ogre land on his head. My answer to that attack, "But the ogre failed in a contest of Strs, not Dexs." Yeah, I think I didn't have any rerolls or apothecaries that match because I was just starting out. But I don't really want to talk about Blood Bowl.
@Rustmonster,
Wow! You've put some thought into this. I'm going to need a more elaborate argument before I'm going to change my position.
|
|
|
