d20 vs. 3d6 "dice heresy" by Chris Sims

[Celebrim]

At the risk of opening the can of worms even further from recent threads (ie. status effects annoying players, "ego-gamers", why must numbers go up, etc ....), here's an article by Chris Sims which proposes replacing the d20 with 3d6 in the basic rolls of 4E D&D, as a way of increasing the probability to hit.

Loremaster - Dice Heresy by Chris Sims

Wonder what to make of this, in light of recent discussions.

Well, in the light of recent discussions, I would say that Chris is part of the band-wagon of players who are taking inspiration from video games and leaping to the wrong conclusions. PnP games aren't video games, and while they share many important features, design decisions that lead to good video games don't necessarily benefit PnP games.

I would also say that Chris has saved me alot of trouble in my side argument where I predict that 4e players will tend toward wanting to 'ban' misses on attack rolls.

 

[slwoyach]

I much prefer 3d6 to d20 and I'm certainly not on that little bandwagon. Burn 4e, burn!

Admin here. Your comment works perfectly well without the attempt at starting an edition war! We're happy if you love 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or Pathfinder. Doesn't matter to us at all. Just don't try to start arguments about it. That goes for everyone, of course.

Thanks. PM me with any questions. ~ Piratecat

 

[Steel_Wind]

I resolved my love-hate affair with the bell curve in the late 80s.

I hate it. Given a choice between a linear curve and a bell curve, I'll take linear. Every. Single. Time.

Why? Because a linear curve is more heroic, that's why. It allows an equal chance for spectacular hits and bad misses far more often at the table than a bell curve does. It's more unpredicatble, allows for more unlikely -- and therefore more heroic results -- and is, therefore, more fun.

An 18 on 3d6 is going to happen less than one chance in 200. A 20 happens one roll in 20. It's not a small difference, it's a difference by more than a factor of ten. 20s happen all the time. An 18 on 3d6? That's a .46% chance. That translates during a session to "hardly ever".

The Bell curve is the primary reason why I hated GURPS and preferred Rolemaster, back in the day. That settled preference has not changed -- and will not ever change.

The day somebody changes D&D to move to a pure bell curve mechanic for it's "to hit" mechanics, is a day I stop playing that version of D&D, forever. As in: Power Word Kill, No Save.

I insist that my RPG be heroic and be one where random luck can save the day. I want that opportunity to roll a 20 to happen relatively often during a session - not once or, more likely, "almost never".

If I had a wet fish in my hand - I'd give this guy and whoever supports such heresy a slap in the face with it.

*Boo hiss*. Down with the Oppression of the Bell; Long Live the Heroic Linear!

 

[Ourph]

I wouldn't use 3d6 in my 4e game. Although it might make equal level opponents (particularly Brutes) easier to hit, it would make higher level opponents (particularly Soldiers and Skirmishers) much more difficult to hit. Since I tend to use a mix of higher and lower level creatures in each fight, I suspect the bell curve would induce grind unless I were to change my encounter design strategies.

For non-4e D&D I could go either way.

 

[RodneyThompson]

Speaking purely from a game design standpoint, non-dice pool systems (like d20, or any other system where you roll a single die) make it easier to predict the statistical impact of other game elements, like numerical bonuses and penalties. In d20, I can be assured that a +1 is always a 5% increase in chance of success, and -5 is always a 25% increase in the chance of failure, for example.

Bell curve systems (and, really, other dice pool systems) don't have the same level of ease of prediction. A +1 means different things based on how the dice fall. Plus, let's face it, the math is just harder when you start adding in multiple dice. Sure, you can do it, and game designers get paid for that kind of thing. But for casual designers (i.e. DMs wanting to homebrew) it slows down the process for most people. It's my personal opinion that a single-die system (d20 or otherwise) is easier to homebrew, and that's a good thing since it makes it easier for DMs/GMs to take ownership of their own game through house rules and homebrewed monsters, treasure, etc.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Speaking purely from a game design standpoint, non-dice pool systems (like d20, or any other system where you roll a single die) make it easier to predict the statistical impact of other game elements, like numerical bonuses and penalties. In d20, I can be assured that a +1 is always a 5% increase in chance of success, and -5 is always a 25% increase in the chance of failure, for example.

Bell curve systems (and, really, other dice pool systems) don't have the same level of ease of prediction. A +1 means different things based on how the dice fall. Plus, let's face it, the math is just harder when you start adding in multiple dice. Sure, you can do it, and game designers get paid for that kind of thing. But for casual designers (i.e. DMs wanting to homebrew) it slows down the process for most people. It's my personal opinion that a single-die system (d20 or otherwise) is easier to homebrew, and that's a good thing since it makes it easier for DMs/GMs to take ownership of their own game through house rules and homebrewed monsters, treasure, etc.

This. All of it.

BTW Rodney - I got my copy of Unknown Regions on Monday and I love it. KotOR aside, I think it's my favorite book in the whole Star Wars: Saga Edition expansion series. A great end to the best Star Wars RPG ever written. My sincere thanks for all your hard work and efforts. I'll be running Saga for my players for *years* to come.

Thanks again and best of luck with Dark Sun 4E.

 

[Ariosto]

The really useful range of numbers does seem to be smaller in 4e than formerly, partly because everything is scaling by levels. Your chance of hitting is probably not far from the inverse (50-50%, 55-45%, 60-40%, etc.) of your chance of getting hit. Whoever has the advantage there probably also has it in hit points and damage, except for differences between monsters and PCs and among roles.

The 9-13 range, which on d20 is from 60% down to 40%, would be closer to 75% down to 25% on 3d6.

A 10+ would go from 55% to 62.5%. An 11+ would still be 50%. So, that 1-point difference would go from a ratio of 1.1x to 1.25x. That's not a lot if damage is similar. For instance, it would be a 6-point difference between 44 and 50 points of damage.

On the other hand, you would need double the numbers at 1:3 to match 2:3.

 

[francisca]

I think I'd like to play a couple sessions like this before passing judgment.

 

[Nifft]

The really useful range of numbers does seem to be smaller in 4e than formerly, partly because everything is scaling by levels. Your chance of hitting is probably not far from the inverse (50-50%, 55-45%, 60-40%, etc.) of your chance of getting hit. Whoever has the advantage there probably also has it in hit points and damage, except for differences between monsters and PCs and among roles.

Yep, for better and for worse, 4e is a much tighter game than its predecessors.

Some prefer tightness; others prefer fast & loose.

"Insert Your Mom Joke Here", -- N

 

[S'mon]

I think the solution is to often use monsters a level or two below the PCs. In numbers they can still threaten, but they can usually be hit and IME the players really enjoy blowing through them.