D&D without dice. . .

[jdrakeh]

I want to run a PbP and, as it happens, D&D isn't very well suited to the medium because rolling dice isn't very well suited to the medium. Yes, they have online dice rollers, but takign the time to roll dice for PbP turns is still a PITA. What I'm looking at doing is hacking the basic d20 resolution mechanic to facilitate a number comparison scheme.

Basically, I want to replace the default "roll 1d20' with static numerical values in the vein of Take 10 and Take 20. The actual number comparison will remain unchanged from basic D&D. I think that tying base numerical values to duress as follows may work well, as this is already an established convention of Take 10 and Take 20:

• Character is under extreme duress = Base Action Value of 5
• Character is under minor duress = Base Action Value of 10
• Character is under no duress = Base Action Value of 20

Naturally, all situational modifiers in the D&D RAW will further apply to these Base Action Values, as they normally would. The point is to get rid of the dice while retaining as many of the other rules as possible (because I still want it to feel considerably D&D, of course).

Where dice and damage (or healing) are concerned, I'm thinking that I might default to a midian score for such values with criticals in combat being scored when a character's Action Value exceeds a certain threshold (the details of which I haven't quite looked at yet).

Finally, I plan to combine with a kind of dramatic editing mechanic inspired by the Code of Unaris RPG, in which players can actually edit typed text to change the story/adventure as it is told. That said, I'm tempted to limit the number of 'hacks' that a character can make per adventure rather than per session (since sessions don't really exist in PbP).

More to come. . .

 

[jdrakeh]

P.S. If anybody sees any obvious math issues here, I welcome feedback (it seems like there might be one but I can't quite put my finger on it). Math isn't my strong suite. That said, let's try to keep critique on point. If you don't like the idea, cool -- but let's not drag the thread into some worthless discussion about why it isn't D&D without rolling dice. Thanks!

 

[jdrakeh]

Ah. . . it hit me. There may need to be some default penalty to AC in this system, as a Base Action Value of 5 (or even 10) starts to look pretty useless against high AC creatures or characters in combat.

 

[jdrakeh]

After some re-thinking, it seems that the following would be a better approach:

1. Reduce all DCs (including ACs in combat) by 10. If this reduces a DC to less than one, it becomes an automatically accomplished action, should a PC attempt it.

2. To perform an action, a player adds up all appropriate modifiers, base bonuses, and skills ranks (per normal) and compares them to the DC.

3. If a PC's adds total more than the DC, they succeed; if not, they fail.

While this makes PCs far more competent (which is as it should be -- there's nothing heroic about a master thief failing to pick a peasant's lock) at performing mundane actions while low level, it is balanced out in two different ways:

A. Even a traditionally low AC creature is a threat if you don't have the adds (i.e., modifiers) to beat the AC, which is likely at lower levels.

B. Players may risk the life of their PC (literally) to gain a temporary edge. That said, this (the PC's life) is the sole expendable resource that can be used to modify add totals.

When a character is fighting a creature (or creatures) that they cannot hit or attempting to perform a challenge that they would normally not be able to accomplish due to a lack of adds, they may spend hit points to make up the deficit.

Hit Points spent in this manner are traded on a 1:1 basis for adds (i.e., one hit point gets you a +1 bonus) and are lost when traded in this manner (they can be replenished as per the RAW). All bonuses gained are applied for an entire scene (e.g., a single battle, a single breaking and entering attempt, etc) and to a single existing ability/skill rating. There is no limit on the number of hit points that may be spent in this manner.

For example, Bob the Fighter (who has a +1 BAB and a +2 STR modifier) is engaged by a creature with an AC of 5 (the player of Bob's PC doesn't know the exact AC, he only knows that Bob can't hit it with his default adds). Bob's player decides to spend four of Bob's hit point to gain a +4 bonus to his BAB. This bonus will apply for the duration of the battle, or until Bob is killed (or knocked out).

As before, all other 'rolls' in this system default to a median value (e.g., a weapon that does 3d4 points of damage will do 6 points of damage, a spell that lasts 4d6 rounds will last 12 rounds, etc). I still haven't thought about criticals, though I'm working on it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Just a couple of things (I like the general approach, by the way) . . .

a weapon that does 3d4 points of damage will do 6 points of damage

7.5, so 7.

a spell that lasts 4d6 rounds will last 12 rounds

14.

I still haven't thought about criticals, though I'm working on it.

This (and a few other scenario types) is where something like action points, fate points, destiny (a la Legends of Excalibur) or the like might be particularly appropriate. If you don't like that kind of game mechanic, that's cool. If I were doing this, I'd probably use them, is all (that, and I do already.)

If you did, having quite a few such points might be a good idea. It could either be a replacement for the HP sacrifice (though that's also quite neat) or in addition to it, giving two alternatives for swinging the 'rolls' when required.

Classically, BBEGs and other major figures would have access to these points too, but your 'mooks', not. However, the painful option might be OK for them.

 

[jdrakeh]

Just a couple of things (I like the general approach, by the way) . . .

7.5, so 7.

14.

Thank you! I've been typing this during breaks at work, so I've been a bit rushed

This (and a few other scenario types) is where something like action points, fate points, destiny (a la Legends of Excalibur) or the like might be particularly appropriate. If you don't like that kind of game mechanic, that's cool. If I were doing this, I'd probably use them, is all (that, and I do already.)

If you did, having quite a few such points might be a good idea. It could either be a replacement for the HP sacrifice (though that's also quite neat) or in addition to it, giving two alternatives for swinging the 'rolls' when required.

I kind of want to keep the HP sacrifice, as that adds some sense of urgency to what would otherwise be mundane actions in the context of D&D (e.g., combat). I almost think that using HPs as APs might work, as this both places a very real value on APs and maintains the aforementioned sense of urgency.

Classically, BBEGs and other major figures would have access to these points too, but your 'mooks', not. However, the painful option might be OK for them.

Yeah, I'm thinking that this may be an option only available to PCs and major NPCs. And, of course, I still need to take a closer look at the 'hacking' rules for modifying text, which is a seperate level of player control from modding dice rolls.

Right now, I'm thinking Hack Points like CoN, with one point allowing you to change a single word in a DM-typed post. Also, like CoN, there will be unhackable words, etc, based on a given campaign. More on this as breaks roll around

Thanks for all of your feedback!

 

[Quartz]

For example, Bob the Fighter (who has a +1 BAB and a +2 STR modifier) is engaged by a creature with an AC of 5 (the player of Bob's PC doesn't know the exact AC, he only knows that Bob can't hit it with his default adds). Bob's player decides to spend four of Bob's hit point to gain a +4 bonus to his BAB. This bonus will apply for the duration of the battle, or until Bob is killed (or knocked out).

This shows you how bad an idea it actually is. 4 HP is a lot for a 1st level fighter (who might only have 12 or 13 in the first place) even a 3rd level one. Even if you were to make it 2:1 it would still be a lot. I suggest you suck it up and do the dice rolls where necessary - but take average damage etc. You're actually making more work for yourself: it's all of 5 minutes work to create a spreadsheet filled with random numbers like d20 rolls. Just check off the numbers as you go.

 

[jdrakeh]

This shows you how bad an idea it actually is. 4 HP is a lot for a 1st level fighter (who might only have 12 or 13 in the first place) even a 3rd level one. Even if you were to make it 2:1 it would still be a lot.

More risk =/= bad for most of the roleplayers that I know locally.

That said, the thing with HP expenditure is that it further changes the focus of the game from "killing things and taking stuff" to well-reasoned combat by virtue of forcing characters to actually risk their lives when they enter combat (let's be fair -- combat isn't much of a risk in D&D 3x, as written).

Likewise, this increased risk adds a new tactical element to the game by begging the question "When is a full frontal assault not the best solution to a problem?" (a question that I sure wish D&D asked more often in and of itself). I am, however, considering the 2:1 ratio with max HP awarded at each level.

I suggest you suck it up and do the dice rolls where necessary

Honestly, if I go the route of dicing games, it would make much more sense to simpy stick to a system that is designed for intuitive, quick, online play out of the box -- and D&D 3x isn't. See below:

. . . it's all of 5 minutes work to create a spreadsheet filled with random numbers like d20 rolls. Just check off the numbers as you go.

If you need a spreadsheet to track dice rolls (or initiative, etc), I not so humbly suggest that you're playing a game far too complex to be intuitive during online play. Needing to create a spreadsheet is huge red flag for 'impracticality' in my book. Sure, I could use such a system, but why would I?

There are literally dozens of dice-based games (RPGs and otherwise) that can be played online without the need for a spreadsheet (or any software, for that matter). If I end up going with a dice-based system, it will be one of these because that's the most practical solution on the front in question.

You're actually making more work for yourself

No -- having to compile a spreadsheet and use or alter other custom software apps to track game elements is more work for me

 

[Set]

Instead of using hit points to force a more successful action, I'd consider having the action type increase.

A Fighter attacking a monster discovers on the first round that he can't hit it with a Standard Action attack, so he has to use a Full Round action to add +5 to his 'attack roll.'

Alternates;

He might have to spend a round 'setting up' to add a +5 on his *next rounds* attack.

If he has multiple attacks, he might be able to sacrifice one attack to take a follow-up attack at +5 (or +4, whatever).

He might be able to attempt a strenuous blow, but takes only non-lethal damage from the effort.

Action points might be used, and a Fighter might get 1 Action Point / day / class level to spend on forcing higher attack rolls in this manner.

 

[usdmw]

Here's a different take on the issue.

You can keep randomness without dice. Simply have each player give you a random number within the appropriate dice range. Make up a similar number yourself in advance. Now add them. If the result is higher than the max value of the range, subtract the max value from the sum.

This is super fast.