The d30 system

[Crothian]

Wimp.

Hey, until you showed up no one had anything positive to say. I'm not going to continue defending something if no one's going to bother listening.

You are right. The current system is black and white. d30 does add more randomness. That can be a good or bad thing. I think an experienced group of players with an experienced DM can handle it with little problem.

 

[mirzabah]

Call me a pedant, but...

d30 does add more randomness.

A d30 is not "more random" than a d20 - it can't "add randomness". What it can do is make the random factor more significant in the outcome.

As hong points out, using d30 can only defer the point at which the dice roll becomes irrelevant to the outcome. But do you really want to scale the random factor with the level of play anyway? By doing so you eliminate the notion of level progression in any meangful sense. Level progression is about the characters becoming more powerful. "More powerful" basically means "less vulnerable" and in mathematical terms this translates to diminishing the influence of random factors in your characters' lives. So, scaling randomness would negate the benefits of level progression which is cheating your players don't you think?

The solution is to retire characters when they become boring. Personally I have always found low-level modules to be much better written than high-level ones anyway.

Mirzabah

 

[Victim]

An attack roll is randomness; a saving throw is randomness. If you don't want encounters that are completely trivial from a gameplay point of view, you must have an element of randomness.

The problem with high-level play (and D&Dg exacerbates this) is that encounters often _aren't_ random enough. It's easy to create a character with attacks that are impossible to resist by other characters. This occurs for a number of reasons, but ultimately, when your modifiers get up to +50 or +60 for attacks, AC and save DCs, the relative contribution of the d20 roll becomes insignificant. Thus either you win without taking a scratch, or you lose without standing a chance.

The topic of high-level campaigns being very hard to manage has been brought up multiple times. Everything has to be tailored to the party's abilities, if you don't want things to be a complete walkover (for either side). So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that Epic-level play will be any different -- in fact, it's probably going to be worse.

As to whether replacing a d20 with a d30 roll is the right solution, I'm not sure. It postpones the point where the die roll is superfluous, but brings with it its own problems, especially at low levels.

The problem really is the binary nature of most task/conflict resolution rolls -- either you succeed, or you fail. Some sort of gradated system might work better for high-level play. For example, instead of having the result of a disintegrate spell be either death or 6d6 damage, maybe you could have a range of possible results, depending on how well you made your save:
- death, if you fail by more than 20
- loss of half your hit points, if you fail by 11-20
- 6d6 damage (but not more than half you hp) if you fail by 1-10
- 3d6 damage (but not more than 1/4 your hp) if you succeed by 1-10
- no damage, if you succeed by 11+.

Something similar could be done for combat rolls and skill checks. This would be a major system redesign, obviously.

Ever play Diplomacy? It's a strategy game with not a single random conflict resolution method once the game starts. I think it's very fun with the right people.

Let's take a 12th level fighter's attack routine. He has his base attacks at +12/+7/+2. Modifiers push the attacks up to the point where his first attack automatically hits, and then some. Maybe he does a normal attack to have a good chance on hitting on his secondary and tertiary attacks. Maybe he does a moderate power attack, increasing the damage with his first automatic first attack but reducing his hit chances on the others. Maybe he gambles on a massive power attack. Perhaps after one round, his enemy fights defensively and uses expertise, so his auto-hit power attacks aren't. There's much more strategy than simply hoping for a high roll, which is pretty much all low level characters can do. You ahve to consider all your attacking options and the possible defensive actions your foe can take. Same thing with saves. At first level, even a good will save class has a pretty good chance of failing a Will save. At high levels, you have to much more choosy, because odds are the cleric will kill you before you dominate him.

Of course, even these elements tend to break down at smackdown type levels.

 

[Crothian]

Re: Call me a pedant, but...

A d30 is not "more random" than a d20 - it can't "add randomness". What it can do is make the random factor more significant in the outcome.

As hong points out, using d30 can only defer the point at which the dice roll becomes irrelevant to the outcome. But do you really want to scale the random factor with the level of play anyway? By doing so you eliminate the notion of level progression in any meangful sense. Level progression is about the characters becoming more powerful. "More powerful" basically means "less vulnerable" and in mathematical terms this translates to diminishing the influence of random factors in your characters' lives. So, scaling randomness would negate the benefits of level progression which is cheating your players don't you think?

The solution is to retire characters when they become boring. Personally I have always found low-level modules to be much better written than high-level ones anyway.

Mirzabah

You are right, the more random was very bad english. The random factor isn't scaleing with level. At some point a d30 is not replacing the d20. It's a d30 from the begining.

 

[hong]

Ever play Diplomacy? It's a strategy game with not a single random conflict resolution method once the game starts. I think it's very fun with the right people.

Yes, I've played Diplomacy, and if I wanted to play Diplomacy, I'd play Diplomacy.

D&D is not Diplomacy, and I'd bet that most players feel the same way. The dice in D&D (and in any game excepting those diceless ones) exist for a reason. If the mechanic evolves to the point where the dice become irrelevant, there's a problem with the mechanic.

 

[hong]

Re: Call me a pedant, but...

As hong points out, using d30 can only defer the point at which the dice roll becomes irrelevant to the outcome. But do you really want to scale the random factor with the level of play anyway?

Yes.

By doing so you eliminate the notion of level progression in any meangful sense. Level progression is about the characters becoming more powerful. "More powerful" basically means "less vulnerable" and in mathematical terms this translates to diminishing the influence of random factors in your characters' lives. So, scaling randomness would negate the benefits of level progression which is cheating your players don't you think?

Nonsense. There has never been a problem in D&D (or with any game system worth its salt) with badly-outmatched fights having a predetermined outcome. Take a 10th level character of any class (even commoner) and put him up against an orc, and the orc is a grease spot. The issue is what happens when the contestants have power levels that are, or should be, nearly equal. There should be more to the game in such situations than merely sitting back and comparing strategies.

The solution is to retire characters when they become boring. Personally I have always found low-level modules to be much better written than high-level ones anyway.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[telepox]

The most effective way of adding value to EVERY stat. or roll would be to use percentage dice for EVERYTHING

 

[Crothian]

The most effective way of adding value to EVERY stat. or roll would be to use percentage dice for EVERYTHING

I thought of that, actually. I figured a d30 was a smaller change, and considering the reaction not small enough.

A big thanks goes out to Hong who is obviously better equiped to argue this particuliar thread then I am.

 

[Gez]

This discussion reminds me of Discarded Prototype #347 of our never-completed homebrew RPG system. We had the idea of scaling dice to condition (health levels, disease poison) so that someone in full strength would use d10, and the dice would scale down until d4 as the conditions worsens. Contrarily, magical bonuses or some drugs could increase the die one category, with a maximum of d12.

This idea was forsaken, for realism and gameplay reasons, but it was fun.

 

[telepox]

We should use coins, men, coins!!!