Question about optional dice method.

[Wild Gazebo]

As a kind of informal poll...without a poll, I have a quick question. If you were playing a game where the die resolution system depended on hitting a range of numbers within the center of a spectrum, as opposed to rolling high or low, would that bother you? Or further yet, resolution called for hitting certain numbers from a type of lottery within a spectrum not necessarily in a range of connected numbers.

For example:

Having to roll a 9-11 on a d20 for success.

or

Having to roll a 3, 7 or 17 on a d20 for success.

I wonder if there is a connection to how the dice land and the enjoyment of the game. This system could have players rolling max numbers and producing a failed action pretty consistently.

While I imagine we are pretty much all conditioned to recognize and enjoy rolling max numbers...I wonder how much it would bother some people. I've played several systems that need to roll low or under for resolution and never felt much difference; but, I must admit, I've heard people complain about not being able to crit with max numbers. Not sure how wide-spread that feeling is.

I'm really just interested in your thoughts on this scenario. The 'why' of who would choose to use this method or the purpose of choosing this method is totally irrelevant to my inquiries.

 

[delericho]

If you were playing a game where the die resolution system depended on hitting a range of numbers within the center of a spectrum, as opposed to rolling high or low, would that bother you?

It depends. If I'm rolling a single die, then "roll high" or "roll low" is just better.

But if I'm rolling multiple dice then some results are more likely than others, so asking for something in the middle is fine.

Or further yet, resolution called for hitting certain numbers from a type of lottery within a spectrum not necessarily in a range of connected numbers.

No thanks, even when using multiple dice. It's fine to want a single specific number (sometimes you have to roll a hard eight), but not multiple such numbers.

I wonder if there is a connection to how the dice land and the enjoyment of the game. This system could have players rolling max numbers and producing a failed action pretty consistently.

There are definitely psychological factors at work there - you mentioned the desire for a nat-20 to be a 'special' success, and it's also true that a failed crit confirmation roll in 3e often hurt more than not rolling the threat in the first place. Likewise, missing an attack by 1 somehow feels worse than being way off.

So, as well as just looking at raw probabilities, a game designer would be well advised to find a method that feels 'right'.

I'm really just interested in your thoughts on this scenario the 'why' of who would choose to use this method is totally irrelevant.

One thing I really don't like are 'gimmicks' in the dice rolling method. Roll high and roll low both have the benefit of having a clear threshold - they're just easy to understand. "Roll 3, 7, or 11" does not - those numbers appear to be purely arbitrary.

 

[Umbran]

My first impression upon seeing those (especially the second) is, "needlessly baroque".

Now, I'm open enough to listen to explanations of why it is, instead, needfully baroque. But that'll be a hard one - in terms of probability, both of what you mention is equivalent to "roll 18 or higher (or 3 or lower) on d20". So, why the complication?

Such a system as you suggest requires more thought (and is therefore slower and more error-prone) than a simple roll high or roll low, so there ought to be some payoff for making it more annoying, so to speak.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

It depends. If I'm rolling a single die, then "roll high" or "roll low" is just better.

But if I'm rolling multiple dice then some results are more likely than others, so asking for something in the middle is fine.

The systems becomes more statistically relevant with multiple dice. It also allows choosing a 'lottery' of numbers to create a very tailored step of succession. The real interest to me is how that makes a player feel while engaged.

No thanks, even when using multiple dice. It's fine to want a single specific number (sometimes you have to roll a hard eight), but not multiple such numbers.

So, you are suggesting having to roll a 2 or 12 on 2d6 would be less fun because of the disconnected multiple numbers or because it appears arbitrary? I wonder how many people are actually in-tune with the process of the game mechanics while they are playing?

One thing I really don't like are 'gimmicks' in the dice rolling method.

Yes. That is what I was wondering. People quite often label different things this way, movies, books and such even without the benefit of knowing the motive...or even if there was one. Thank-you for your response.

My first impression upon seeing those (especially the second) is, "needlessly baroque".

Now, I'm open enough to listen to explanations of why it is, instead, needfully baroque. But that'll be a hard one - in terms of probability, both of what you mention is equivalent to "roll 18 or higher (or 3 or lower) on d20". So, why the complication?

Such a system as you suggest requires more thought (and is therefore slower and more error-prone) than a simple roll high or roll low, so there ought to be some payoff for making it more annoying, so to speak.

While I appreciate your openness to something I'm not selling, I'm far more interested in your initial reaction. By 'baroque' do you mean old fashioned or do you mean misshapen...dark...new age....out of sync? I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

Or, would it be fair to say that while you play a game you are intimately aware of the logistical relevance of the die mechanic? Therefore, a less than optimized mechanic makes the game less fun for you? And if so, is it because of the traditional application or the perceived lack of user friendliness?

 

[delericho]

So, you are suggesting having to roll a 2 or 12 on 2d6 would be less fun because of the disconnected multiple numbers or because it appears arbitrary?

Yep, exactly. I'd be happy with "you need to roll a 2 on 2d6" or "you need to roll a 12 on 2d6", or even "you need to roll an 8 on 2d6", but not "you need to roll a 2 or a 12 on 2d6".

 

[Umbran]

Yep, exactly. I'd be happy with "you need to roll a 2 on 2d6" or "you need to roll a 12 on 2d6", or even "you need to roll an 8 on 2d6", but not "you need to roll a 2 or a 12 on 2d6".

And note: "roll a 2 or a 12 on 2d6" is only *slightly* different from "roll a 2 or a 3 on 2d6". Are we really that concerned about a 3% difference? Isn't that going to be lost in other statistical noise?

This is why I say there needs to be a payoff. What does the player *get* in functionality for having the more complicated (and apparently arbitrary) mechanic? Arbitrary mechanics are, for the player, an issue, in that they block the player from developing an intuitive grasp of their chances of success, so they don't like 'em much.

Also, I note that the "roll a 3, 7, or 14 on a d20" or "roll a 2 or 12 on 2d6" means that the conventional idea of a simple additive or subtractive bonus goes out the window. Improving one's chances must be done in some other manner.

 

[Jhaelen]

The 'why' of who would choose to use this method or the purpose of choosing this method is totally irrelevant to my inquiries.

Without addressing the 'why' question, I wouldn't like it all. While I could come up with systems even less intuitive, e.g. 'You succeed if you roll a Prime number!', or something like rolling a bunch of dice before every check to get a list of 'target' numbers, if there's no really good reason, I'd absolutely avoid this.

Now, if the system involved rolling multiple dice, picking the 'center range' as the target numbers would make slightly more sense, but I'd still consider it odd, unless the system used several bands of success.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Without addressing the 'why' question, I wouldn't like it all. While I could come up with systems even less intuitive, e.g. 'You succeed if you roll a Prime number!', or something like rolling a bunch of dice before every check to get a list of 'target' numbers, if there's no really good reason, I'd absolutely avoid this.

Now, if the system involved rolling multiple dice, picking the 'center range' as the target numbers would make slightly more sense, but I'd still consider it odd, unless the system used several bands of success.

Yes, it seems I can't avoid the why with this crowd. This type of method would be completely optimized through a multiple dice, step system, of success--as you alluded to--whereas a very accurate progression of successes could be modeled. But, I have zero interest in creating or advocating for this system...I'm just wondering how a player coming to the idea would react to it. Especially if they are used to more traditional models.

 

[Umbran]

'm just wondering how a player coming to the idea would react to it. Especially if they are used to more traditional models.

If we are a model, then the answer is that the player would react by asking, "Why the heck are you doing *that*? Please explain..."

 

[Razjah]

Would the system bother me? Yes, unless there was a clearly defined reason for the change. I routinely play with non-gamers are new gamers, this seems needlessly complicated to explain compared to "roll high!" or "beat this number all the time" or "roll a pile of d6 and all results of a 4,5,6 are successful- tell me how many success you got" methods. This comes across like a board game with too many pieces, if you can explain why the game takes 40 minutes to set up, I may try. But I am way more likely to walk away.