The spring semester is drawing to a close. It's been a busy one, with me actually focusing on my dissertation/implementation for a change. Sadly, this has meant less time for gaming. I hope to continue implementing into the summer, so there probably won't be too much of a gaming resurgence for a while. But, despite a grading backlog to still get through this week, the coming summer has stirred me to look through my various gaming threads once more:
• d20: I've been brushing off d20house and my Tellurian Tales characters and trying to get back into d20 again. The two players I actually have await me in two other D&D storylines. So I'd really like to get out of my current d20 doldrums.
In brushing off my characters, I'm reminded once more of the huge "character creation" side of D&D. As I was explaining to S., it has some of the same draw as Magic: The Gathering: There is a collection of different abilities that can be combined to form awesome combos. And, thanks to WotC's prolific publishing schedule, the library of possible components constantly expands. So there's this draw to familiarize myself with all the possible components and then flesh-out the "perfect" combos in accordance with some initial character (or deck) concept.
While this is still fun, sometimes of late I find it a bit tedious. Specifically, prestige classes annoy me. Many are close to what I want but none are "just right". So I've been designing a couple custom classes--but, since there's no real mechanic for this, it tends to take me hours of thought.
• Caligo: I poke at this occasionally and I'm quite happy with how it's coming along. So far it's staying pretty simple, which is good. I have a few different one-off story ideas I want to try... someday.
• Dark Heresy: A break-thru here in that this week I decided to drop my Zludge translation of this. While I'm sure the work already done on this will inform eventual Zludge Prime work, I decided to just leave Dark Hersey as it is.... because it's actually quite a nice system, especially now that I've come to appreciate some of the advantages of a roll-under die mechanic. I have lots of story ideas here, and I'd like to move into some serious campaigns with this once my d20 lines end. So I'm trying to shelve it again until then (and focus back on my d20 threads!).
• zilch: I was thinking about this yesterday and this morning. I was refocusing on it's mission: a boardgame-like dungeon-crawling RPG. Some elements of it--such as the spell system--I think could be used elsewhere (like in z20). But I really need to get back to a boardgame sort of focus. This morning, I started sketching out stuff on that: particularly, how I might generate a story/dungeon on the fly so no pre-game GM planning is required--only some (potentially collaborative) refereeing. We'll see where this goes...
• z20: Now I'm turning my eye to z20 once again... that old sore tooth that I can't stop poking.
[I apologize to my readers that my blog is so often a review of threads or a whining reiteration of the same points over and over again, but this blog is really sort of my gaming journal. This is where I come when I need to record (or, frequently, reaffirm once again) some gaming insight or goal.]
Showing posts with label w40k. Show all posts
Showing posts with label w40k. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Die Mechanic Flavors
Yesterday on the bus I started mentally comparing Dark Heresy's roll-under d100 die mechanic to that of Zludge's 2dF. In particular, I was curious how much such a conversion would affect the percentage likelihood of success in different situations. But I came to realize that this is too low-level of a comparison. Instead, it's more important to consider the assumptions behind a mechanic and the resulting "flavor" that it imparts.
Here's what I mean in terms of 4 different die mechanics I've been working with lately:
d20: linear skill variation. Here, the die roll just provides a random bonus to the skill. The average d20 roll is about 10 (10.5, actually), so against a DC of 10+skill, there's about a 50% chance of success or failure. If using critical success (natural 20) or critical failure (natural 1) rules, there's a 5% chance (for each one) each roll, regardless of the character's skill level. Because the roll distribution is linear, you are just as likely to roll at the extremes of the range (+10 or -10) as you are at the character's actual skill (+0).
Zludge: curved skill variation. As for d20, this just provides a bit of randomness centered on the character's skill level. However, a curved roll distribution is weighted towards the skill level: there's a 33% chance of rolling +0 on 2dF, but only an 11% chance of rolling +2. If +0 is sufficient to succeed, this gives a 66% success rate.
I feel this curve limits some of the "gambling" flavor of d20, especially since the range of possible roll values is so small. It's almost like playing diceless--it's unlikely you'll get very "lucky" with a roll. But this goes the other way too: it's more unlikely you'll fail miserably just due to a bad roll. Instead, you have to intelligently play based on your character's skill level.
Dark Heresy: linear roll-under. Here, you roll d100 and roll under your skill value. The degree of success is determined by just how far under you roll. Thus, as your skill level increases, so does both the likelihood of success and the possible degree of success.
In Dark Heresy, the average skill starts at about 30, so this gives only a 30% success rate (though this can be modified based on the circumstances; it seems DH's default curve center-point is for a pretty challenging task). Since the distribution is linear, each skill improvement gives the same return: +5 skill increases your chance of success by 5%, regardless of whether you purchase the increase at a low or high skill level.
Assuming few characters ever achieve the max skill level of 100, there is always a chance of failure on a roll. It feels that your fate is controlled much more by chance with this mechanic: your skill only sways the likelihood of success, but there are no guarantees here. Every roll is a gamble. (I actually like QAGS's "the Price is Right" spin on the linear roll-under mechanic a little better, but it produces the same results.)
GURPS: curved roll-under. As a roll-under system, this too seems to have a bit more of a gambling feels. For example, you're just as likely to roll an 18 on 3d6 when you have a skill of 8 as you do with a skill of 16. However, since the distribution is curved, at least most rolls will be centered around 10.5. The chance of rolling an 18 is only 1/216. Skill increases at higher levels provide increasingly limited returns.
After considering these differences, I think I am correct in going with the Zludge die mechanic, since that is the flavor I want in my games. As applied to Dark Heresy, this may reduce the "grittiness" a bit. However, I do still plan to try QAGS a bit, to see if my expectations for a linear roll-under system really do bear true.
Here's what I mean in terms of 4 different die mechanics I've been working with lately:
d20: linear skill variation. Here, the die roll just provides a random bonus to the skill. The average d20 roll is about 10 (10.5, actually), so against a DC of 10+skill, there's about a 50% chance of success or failure. If using critical success (natural 20) or critical failure (natural 1) rules, there's a 5% chance (for each one) each roll, regardless of the character's skill level. Because the roll distribution is linear, you are just as likely to roll at the extremes of the range (+10 or -10) as you are at the character's actual skill (+0).
Zludge: curved skill variation. As for d20, this just provides a bit of randomness centered on the character's skill level. However, a curved roll distribution is weighted towards the skill level: there's a 33% chance of rolling +0 on 2dF, but only an 11% chance of rolling +2. If +0 is sufficient to succeed, this gives a 66% success rate.
I feel this curve limits some of the "gambling" flavor of d20, especially since the range of possible roll values is so small. It's almost like playing diceless--it's unlikely you'll get very "lucky" with a roll. But this goes the other way too: it's more unlikely you'll fail miserably just due to a bad roll. Instead, you have to intelligently play based on your character's skill level.
Dark Heresy: linear roll-under. Here, you roll d100 and roll under your skill value. The degree of success is determined by just how far under you roll. Thus, as your skill level increases, so does both the likelihood of success and the possible degree of success.
In Dark Heresy, the average skill starts at about 30, so this gives only a 30% success rate (though this can be modified based on the circumstances; it seems DH's default curve center-point is for a pretty challenging task). Since the distribution is linear, each skill improvement gives the same return: +5 skill increases your chance of success by 5%, regardless of whether you purchase the increase at a low or high skill level.
Assuming few characters ever achieve the max skill level of 100, there is always a chance of failure on a roll. It feels that your fate is controlled much more by chance with this mechanic: your skill only sways the likelihood of success, but there are no guarantees here. Every roll is a gamble. (I actually like QAGS's "the Price is Right" spin on the linear roll-under mechanic a little better, but it produces the same results.)
GURPS: curved roll-under. As a roll-under system, this too seems to have a bit more of a gambling feels. For example, you're just as likely to roll an 18 on 3d6 when you have a skill of 8 as you do with a skill of 16. However, since the distribution is curved, at least most rolls will be centered around 10.5. The chance of rolling an 18 is only 1/216. Skill increases at higher levels provide increasingly limited returns.
After considering these differences, I think I am correct in going with the Zludge die mechanic, since that is the flavor I want in my games. As applied to Dark Heresy, this may reduce the "grittiness" a bit. However, I do still plan to try QAGS a bit, to see if my expectations for a linear roll-under system really do bear true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)