Bell Curve - Ramifications?

[Terwox]

Briefly, I would never use 3d6. The game is not setup for it. As said above, it changes the game too much, and favors modifiers much more heavily. Which is not always bad, but... anyway, for 4E, consider the effect on brutes -- they would become nearly pointless. PCs generally have similar to-hit bonuses to each other, this is not true for monsters. Soldiers would become more dangerous as they would rarely miss.

I would consider using 2d10, as it is a lot more elegant... although I still wouldn't bother.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Also, to me (and I know I speak for the 7 other people in my group), D&D is rolling a d20. Remove the d20, and I will be one of those screaming: " isn't D&D" or whatever is the cool thing to say.

Duly noted, but I'm not terribly concerned about that.

On the whole I think a really good game system could be made, but it would be best to not even try to start from a d20 mindset.

What makes you say that?

It would affect high level games too.

Not terribly concerned about that. Allowing multiple attacks as part of a normal attack action seems ludicrous to me.

If you're asking about intentions...

I'm not. I'm asking what mechanically makes the statement true. Why is it the case, from a mechanical standpoint, that PCs will regularly win out over NPCs and critters?

For instance, a +2 bonus that takes you from hitting on a natural 11 (or higher) to a natural 9 (or higher) on 1d20 increases your number of hits by 20% (x1.2). On 3d6, it increases your number of hits by 48% (x1.48).

Now we are getting somewhere.

Okay - let's take this point, and delve deeper into the mechanics. We want the system to now reflect the fact that we're using 3d6, as opposed to 1d20, as the base roll for everything. What changes (in a general sense - no need to get specific, unless you want to) do you make to the mechanics of the game?

One subtler implication of a bell curve is that some players might feel less "excited" about die rolling. The large majority of 3d6 rolls are going to fall within 3 of the mean, which just isn't a lot of variation. IMO, one of the reasons D&D is successful is that the d20 is so random that action resolution feels much more iffy than it actually is. It creates an all but illusory possibility of failure.

Interesting.

But what if "[the DM or system] makes combat exciting by pitting PCs against opponents who, though of course usually weaker, nevertheless often seriously threaten the PCs"?

 

[blargney the second]

The campaign I'm running now started out as 2d10 for the first 4 or five levels. We ended up switching back to d20s because we found the bell shape made combats even more predictable than we'd anticipated. Because pretty much every stat improves on creatures as they advance in levels, the range of useful CRs was drastically reduced. Low-CR monsters were simply no challenge, and high-CR monsters were unbelievably difficult.

Finally, it takes a smidgeon longer to do the arithmetic when you pile on an extra variable to add up. If you have any players that are remotely not fast at math, this can slow things down considerably.

From my experience, I'd recommend against belling up your d20s.
-blarg

 

[Tervin]

What makes you say that?

The 3d6 system will give a lot more predictable results to dice rolls. Basing things on d20 will lead to boring games, when the variety in what happens goes down. My prediction is that it would be less suitable for systems that want a focus on exciting combats.

The 3d6 model is better for mechanics with die manipulation, and would probably be better for skill and improvisation centered systems that want to be more open to letting the player take over some power from the DM.

This is mostly based on my gut, from having played games with very different focus and systems. Some of it is also based on math implications.

 

[AtomicPope]

I play Warmachine and HORDES, table-top strategy games, made by Privateer Press and each uses 2D6. It's a very fun game but unlike D&D where the stat values can vary by +30 or more in WM the values are much lower. The reason, as already stated, is deviation from the mean decreases likelihood of obtaining that value. Warmachine designated 5 as the mean characteristic value. When making rolls against the mean value the mean defenses are set at 12, or seven points higher than the mean attack value. Even minor deviation greatly increases or decreases the chance for success. As a result, few characteristics are higher than 7 or lower than 3. Too static? Too similar? Not exactly.

The game was designed with a limited resource pool than an entire team draws from - called Focus or Fury. Each Focus "point" can roughly be converted into a single "boost die" that adds +1D6 to attack or damage rolls. Rather than vary the stats with static bonuses, the game relies heavily on using the Bell Curve of 2D6 to demand resources from a limited pool every turn. Focus also grants additional attacks, activates special powers, etc. Some teams are designed to use less, others more. Since the greatest degree of variation comes from a very limited resource, much of the game's strategy and tactics revolve around Focus.

They're both very fun games. However, they're also very different to D&D because characteristics are tied closely to power management and dependent dice rolls (2D6).

 

[xechnao]

I play Warmachine and HORDES, table-top strategy games, made by Privateer Press and each uses 2D6. It's a very fun game but unlike D&D where the stat values can vary by +30 or more in WM the values are much lower. The reason, as already stated, is deviation from the mean decreases likelihood of obtaining that value. Warmachine designated 5 as the mean characteristic value. When making rolls against the mean value the mean defenses are set at 12, or seven points higher than the mean attack value. Even minor deviation greatly increases or decreases the chance for success. As a result, few characteristics are higher than 7 or lower than 3. Too static? Too similar? Not exactly.

The game was designed with a limited resource pool than an entire team draws from - called Focus or Fury. Each Focus "point" can roughly be converted into a single "boost die" that adds +1D6 to attack or damage rolls. Rather than vary the stats with static bonuses, the game relies heavily on using the Bell Curve of 2D6 to demand resources from a limited pool every turn. Focus also grants additional attacks, activates special powers, etc. Some teams are designed to use less, others more. Since the greatest degree of variation comes from a very limited resource, much of the game's strategy and tactics revolve around Focus.

They're both very fun games. However, they're also very different to D&D because characteristics are tied closely to power management and dependent dice rolls (2D6).

Wtf?
I know these games by title and type but I did not know mechanics specifics. They seem very close* to what I am trying to design at the moment -or rather what I am trying to design seems close to this. Still not exactly the same but a very similar thinking. I have to check them out.

*I also have gone the way of the 2d6 mechanic and a focus idea but from what you are describing here focus implementation seems different in my design.

 

[Jack99]

Duly noted, but I'm not terribly concerned about that.

Yeah. I was reading another thread at the same time (different tab) about what evolution we would like for 5e or 6e (or something along that line) and I apparently got it mixed up with your thread, and thus responded as if we were talking about WotC changing the game for the next edition.

My bad

As for your own game, I believe my more mechanical issues with 3d6 has been covered well. You will get a very predictable and thus (IMO) boring game. Of course, if you don't like the randomness and the unexpectedness that the d20 brings to the table, 3d6 might be just what you need.

Cheers,

 

[Bullgrit]

I have considered using 2d10 many times over the past couple of years. Most of my games have all been in the lower half of the level range (1-10), so the variableness of the d20 usually outweighs the modifier a PC may have for the roll. The 1-20 linear range annoys me with attacks and saves, and it really aggravates me with skill checks.

With my luck, as a Player (vice DM), many times I would rather roll 2d10 and often get an average roll than roll 1d20 and get the wild variation.

It's interesting how many people are using the word "boring" to describe the results of 3d6. But I remember all the arguments for using 3d6 to roll ability scores because the results are more exciting. Some people like rolling 3d6 because of the interesting variation, but others don't like rolling 3d6 because of the boring predictability.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[questing gm]

What about using 3d6 for skill checks and d20 for combat ?
Would 3d6 fix the 'impossible to reach DCs' for skill challenges in 4e?

 

[mmadsen]

Okay - let's take this point, and delve deeper into the mechanics. We want the system to now reflect the fact that we're using 3d6, as opposed to 1d20, as the base roll for everything. What changes (in a general sense - no need to get specific, unless you want to) do you make to the mechanics of the game?

Some of the changes from 3E to 4E already work toward this goal, even though the game obviously didn't shift to 3d6; the problem's just more pronounced with a tighter distribution. That is, you want bonuses to be tightly distributed, or the roll becomes superfluous.

Besides being too predictable, not needing to roll changes the balance of the game quite a bit. Always hitting means hitting roughly twice as much as normal. High to-hit bonuses are fairly useful. Never getting hit means taking zero damage. High AC bonuses are broken-good.