Bell Curve - Ramifications?

[mmadsen]

That works for ranks, but what about base attack bonus advancement?

Let's try again:

We could simply take 3E's skill system and cap all skills -- and quasi-skills, I suppose, like BAB, Saves, etc. -- at 10 ranks.​

The point of my aside was that we could treat quasi-skill like BAB and the three saves as skills, cap them at 10, like I was proposing for skills, and any additional bonuses past that point would count as extra skill points to spend on something else.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Since you like 4e I think your argument here fails you. Sweet spot and stuff?

The returns are not diminishing. They are constant.

I think this is more of a game design issue. The level of granularity would be imposed upon the player if the design is any good. The real trick would be to keep things from being significantly more complicated than what D&D currently uses.

It seems more a psychological issue. "+1%" doesn't feel big enough after you've enjoyed a +5% increases.

The "trick" D&D 4 uses is that your actual to-hit chances are fairly constant, since the enemies you fight grow with you. Thus you always feel getting more powerful.
An alternative at least for combat would be to increase the number of enemies you fight instead of their strength. So, at some point you might have reached a 60 % to-hit chance, but you can actually make two attacks with that chance, or something like that.

Ultimately, most groups have to make the choice of power caps or ending their campaigns because most of the most committed DMs just aren't willing to keep going into the upper levels.

But that is not a problem of the size of the numbers involved, but of the complexity in arriving at them. Which might be related to the number of options gained. 4E increases the number of actual options per combat at a low number, but the options improve over time. Where you used to have an ability that dealt 2[W] damage, you eventually get one that deals 3[W] damage. Overall, this should keep the game manageable. (It remains to be seen if this works out in the long run, but I can see the design striving for that). In 3E, basically every level of spell added to what you had before - it rarely replaced it. Bulls Strength might got obsolete with Mass Bull Strength, but Bless remains valid even if the Cleric has Prayer.

Players would have no problems with an attack bonus of +3, +30 or +300. But they have a problem if they have to apply 10 effects to arrive at that number.

Another issue might be with the type of options available - if a DM prefers the PCs traveling around and meeting NPCs and finding reasons to adventure, a campaign becomes less suited for him once Teleport becomes available. Similar, a DM that loves mysteries will prefer to limit the effects of divinations in his game...
That problem will stay as long as you allow such an effect.

Well, this is getting fairly off-topic...

 

[xechnao]

The returns are not diminishing. They are constant.

Actually the effects are non-existent since everything scales. As you say in your post above it is just psychological. You get perhaps more special abilities but this is not what you were talking about regarding leveling.

 

[mmadsen]

The "trick" D&D 4 uses is that your actual to-hit chances are fairly constant, since the enemies you fight grow with you. Thus you always feel getting more powerful.

Or not...

An alternative at least for combat would be to increase the number of enemies you fight instead of their strength.

That is much more likely to demonstrate your increased strength than fighting "Red Queen" opponents who grow stronger just as fast as you do.

But that is not a problem of the size of the numbers involved, but of the complexity in arriving at them. Which might be related to the number of options gained.

Exactly. Mutants & Masterminds is built around powerful characters -- they're literally superheroes -- but they're not complicated characters to play. Yes, the numbers are slightly bigger, but they don't have dozens of moving parts to keep track of.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually the effects are non-existent since everything scales. As you say in your post above it is just psychological. You get perhaps more special abilities but this is not what you were talking about regarding leveling.

Well, the psychology works. The monsters still get bigger and badder.

Every level-based system will probably face this - you get better on the absolute scale, but on the relative scale, nothing changes. Your changes to "win" stay the same, since you're fighting stronger opposition then previously.

Though it's not only level-based system. A Shadowrun team with a lot of karma points will also face more dangerous opposition, and should still prevail at the same time.

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

Well then, you should definitely check them out. I would suggest both games because each one implements their resouces in a slightly different way (Focus <> Fury). What I found interesting is that the game is very cinematic because of the dynamic values (boosting). Since Focus/Fury are parceled out in every game, every game is quite different.

A unit without Focus/Fury acts the same (as is expected). However, a unit with Focus/Fury hits harder, more often, activates special abilities, and is granted more attack actions. A simple analogy would be chess. What if players were allowed to "spend Focus/Fury" for moving one additional square? A pawn would be able to take two pieces in a single turn. What happens is the game is harder to predict. The results vary based on Focus/Fury spent vs points unspent. There is a flat defensive bonus for points unspent. Remember the 2D6 system greatly rewards even small modifiers (Bell Curve) so by not spending you can deflect anticipated attacks and counter against an opponent whose attacks are static.


I realize I'm speaking in generalities but I don't want to breach any IP constraints. I suppose a simple example might be required to make some sense. I'll try and keep it generic.

Warjack Big, Slow and Strong vs Warjack Small, Fast and Weak
Fast attacks strong
1) MAT (Melee Attack) 4 vs DEF (Defense) 10 - since attacks are made with 2D6 the chances are quite high (72.2%) that Fast will roll a 6 or higher to hit.
2) Damage - Slow has a high ARM (Armor) value of 20. In the game, armor varies greatly because weapons are composed of two stats that add damage and the game favors aggression (damage is likely to occur). All damage over armor is taken point by point, unlike some games where any hit produces a static value of one wound. Fast has an average Melee Damage of 12 meaning it will not cause much damage on Slow even on a maximum roll (4pts). Fast would want to boost the damage roll otherwise there's a 73% chance that Fast won't cause a single point of damage. By boosting (rolling 3D6 to damage) Fast will increase the likelihood and amount of damage caused on slow.

The boosting attack dice also increases chance for critical hits. A critical hit in the game is any double. That means most critical hits will occur about 1:12 (because all 1's auto miss and rolling double 2's or double 3's is below mean so it usually doesn't hit; except in the Example of Slow v Fast). This is important because many attacks have critcal effects such as slowing, immobilizing, sustained attacks, or armor piercing (to name a few).


My examples won't do either of these games justice. I recommend checking out both games since each handles their resource in a slightly different way. If I had to go with the "Better Game" it would be Hordes. I love WM but Hordes is the newer game which worked out a few of the "kinks" in WM. By "kinks" I mean resources are better generated and distributed. Also, it has rules for surplus that WM lacks, and which can be volatile (kinda adds a new twist).

 

[xechnao]

Hey, thanks again for the reply. I read the fast play rules provided on their site but you now manage to tease me more than the fast rules. On what I am designing I have been using 2d6 and a focus mechanic but both seem to run on a bit different manner than Hordes. Also my mechanics are applied on a more abstract and broad (yet streamlined) roleplaying game approach than miniature. Yet Hordes seems tons of fun and the overall design idea is very, very similar to what I am trying to make. I think I am paying a visit to my local FLGS tomorrow because above all things I find this similarity fascinating.

 

[Umbran]

I like the 3d6 approach, because it puts more weight on the average case and less on the extreme cases...

Depends what you're calling the "weight of the average case".

Me, I think the 3d6 style actually takes importance away from the average case - because the characters are actually more likely to succeed at average tasks, and therefore there's less drama surrounding them.

Meanwhile, those cases where they need to get that high number are given greater weight in the minds of the players, because that high result is far more difficult to get.

 

[mmadsen]

Okay, so. Let's say that, in either 3.5 or 4e (take your pick), you replace the d20 with 3d6 - so we get a bell curve, right?

One point we haven't made yet is that, sure, the 3d6 distribution is almost a bell curve, but any one test -- to-hit roll, save, whatever -- is a binary test, yes-no, pass-fail.

It doesn't matter whether you roll 1d20, 3d6, or percentile dice, if you have an N% chance of success, that's your chance of success. For the most part, rolling 3d6 simply obfuscates the probabilities.

 

[pawsplay]

Look at a GURPS probability table sometime to see what 3d6 looks like. In short, it won't work properly unless you plan on rewriting the whole game. While the bell curve is often thought of as "flattening," in this case, the net result would be that between opponents of very similar ability, small differences would become larger. A +2 point difference is of far greater utility when you can be more confident of die rolls favoring the expected outcome (i.e., the person with the +2 winning).