Pre-3e mechanics vs d20 system mechanics

[Garthanos]

i think people make a big deal over minor differences (who cares rolling under and over even the benefits of consistency are mildly over blown) and ignore big ones like the difference in how the turn, movement and initiative resolution were actually handled... hint 3e and 4e and 5e are very nearly identical about this and treat things like we are taking turns in a manner like chess pieces ... with only a very few off turn abilities implying otherwise.

 

[Garthanos]

I agree, but the mixed mechanic is actually pretty common. GURPS uses it in all their settings, for example, and if I recall Runequest did as well.

Runequest was highly consistent about rolling under a target number for just about everything

 

[Greenfield]

Including damage rolls? It's been a long time so I might not recall it right, but I think damage you wanted high and other things you wanted low.

 

[Shasarak]

What are your thoughts on unified mechanics versus varied mechanics? For example, pre-3rd edition D&D had a mix of methods for determining dice results: roll over, roll under, d20 for combat & saves, d100 for thief skills, d6 or d10 for surprise, etc... while 3rd edition and onward all use the d20 roll-over mechanic for everything. Do you have a preference? Or does it matter at all? Perhaps your preference is determined by the style of game you're looking for?

I think in general I prefer the unified mechanics. Certainly there is not much different between using a d20 and a d100 unless you have a level of granularity that needs values less then 5%.

Having said that, one mechanic that I would enjoy seeing again is the Ability check so maybe having two mechanics would not be too much of a stretch and certainly would give Ability scores more of a purpose then just as a measure of your bonus.

 

[Imaculata]

I agree, but the mixed mechanic is actually pretty common.

I find it strange that it IS so common. One of the biggest problems for new players, is knowing what die to roll. It is probably the most common question at the table from new players: "What do I roll?". So in that context, mixed mechanics are really bad game design. This might not be apparent to anyone that already knows the rules. But play any game that has A LOT of mixed mechanics, and you immediately notice what an obstruction it is to playing (and learning to play) the game.

 

[houser2112]

Unified mechanics all the way. It's ironic that grognards who dislike the complexity of 3.PF would want to retain the old mess that was pre-3,0:

Low THAC0 is good, low save thresholds are good, high ability scores are good. Roll high when you swing your sword, roll low when you're picking a lock. Roll under your unmodified Dexterity score to catch the goblet that fell off the table (how the average DM would probably resolve something that wasn't covered by a non-weapon proficiency), roll under your ability score as if it was 3 lower than it actually is when trying to use this non-weapon proficiency, roll under your ability score as if it was 3 higher than it actually is for this other non-weapon proficiency. Roll a d20 when you swing your sword, resist the wizard's charm, or dodge the dragons's breath weapon. Roll % to disarm a trap or survive resurrection. Roll a d6 to notice secret doors. Roll a d10 to determine initiative.

 

[vivsavage]

Let's narrow it down a bit: how about mechanics that are, for example, consistently roll-over versus a target number, but some rolls are 3d6 and others 1d20 in an attempt to establish a different curve for different things. Maybe skill rolls use 3d6 to give characters more consistent results, but combat uses 1d20 to encourage a more unpredictable narrative. That's just an idea off the top of my head; I'm not talking about that specific idea exclusively.

 

[Imaculata]

Let's narrow it down a bit: how about mechanics that are, for example, consistently roll-over versus a target number, but some rolls are 3d6 and others 1d20 in an attempt to establish a different curve for different things. Maybe skill rolls use 3d6 to give characters more consistent results, but combat uses 1d20 to encourage a more unpredictable narrative. That's just an idea off the top of my head; I'm not talking about that specific idea exclusively.

I think that still leads to the same problem of players not knowing what dice (and how many dice) to roll. Consistent results are already covered by what ever bonus the players have on their check, are they not?

Although I do not play 5th edition, they sure had the right idea by also merging some of the bonuses into either advantage or disadvantage. The more you can unify the rules into one consistent system, while also reducing a lot of math, the easier it is to understand and remember.

 

[vivsavage]

I think that still leads to the same problem of players not knowing what dice (and how many dice) to roll. Consistent results are already covered by what ever bonus the players have on their check, are they not?

Because of the 3d6 bell curve, the results are more consistently gathered around the 9-12 range, so even with the same modifiers the results are going to be gathered around a more predictable result than d20. It could be argued that 3d6 would tend to favor "skilled" characters over non-skilled more than the d20 even with bonuses. For example, a character with a +0 bonus versus a target of 15 will succeed 9.26% of the time on 3d6 and 20% of the time on 1d20... while a character with a +5 bonus versus a target number of 15 will succeed 62.50% of the time with 3d6 and 55% of the time with 1d20. It is, of course, all a matter or preference. I don't want to suggest that the idea is inherently better than exclusively using 3d6 or 1d20.

Devil's advocate question: is that really harder to remember 3d6 for skill checks and 1d20 for combat than having different damage dice for different weapons? In other words, in D&D I know my sword does 1d8 and dagger does 1d4. So having 3d6 skill checks and 1d20 combat rolls would seem just as easy to remember(?)

 

[Garthanos]

Including damage rolls? It's been a long time so I might not recall it right, but I think damage you wanted high and other things you wanted low.

True I was going to say with damage you weren't aiming for a target number but since armor is damage resistance ... It parallels perfectly