Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Thomas Shey]

For me I find dice pools simpler and more fun. I'm okay with any type of die resolution system (if I want a clear transparent sense of probability, I would go with something like a d100 based system like Chaosium has). But one thing I like about dice pools is they both cloud numbers (so it is harder for a math wiz to calculate the probability on the fly, while being pretty intuitive, so everyone has a sense of their chances).

That's--not always true. It can be for a relatively simple one, but for an illustration of how to do this so its completely opaque, look at original Storyteller; once you're varying both target numbers per die and number of dice, I'd claim most people's intuitions are almost certainly faulty and they'll largely figure out they have no real sense of chances over time.

I'm not also sure I consider "can't figure the probabilities" a virtue, but I suspect you're more talking about precise probability (though I'm not sure why people being able to do that is a problem).

Admittedly I am biased. I use dice pools in my own systems. But I chose dice pools because I like how they feel (and for me the fondest is purely about the mechanic because I actually like very few games that use dice pools: I always enjoyed the dice pool aspects of those games, but I was often not a fan of the settings they were attached to).

All that said, I do get that dice pools are a tough sell (I've been selling dice pool games for over ten years and so I know it is just a fact: if you make a game with dice pools, there is a percentage of players for whom that will be a non-starter). So it is one of those things where, if you are designing a game, you have to ask yourself if the enjoyment that the feel of dice pools brings to you is worth that (because you won't get the same resistance to something like a die+bonus, or a percentile system). For me, it is important that the games I am making are games I want to play and enjoy (I like d20 for example but I would have been miserable if I were making d20 games for the past 13 years).

I'm really surprised, unless its just people coming out of the D&D-sphere, given the long history of dice pools. I mean, they go all the way back to the original Star Wars game, so I don't know why there's be any ingrained resistance.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, its interesting. While I have a visceral like for the d20, dice pool systems (at least in the old days) had the patina of 'new tech' so they kind of made your game seem shiny and sophisticated. That can be nice! d100, for me at least, OTOH always held this sort of feeling of early klunky skill-based systems that only kinda half worked, lol. I mean, its probably subjective, but at least for me d20 systems seem possibly a bit trad, but simple and elegant. Dice pool systems seem weird and inscrutable and attempting to be 'high tech', and d100 systems just seem overly technical but not really doing anything better than a good old d20, lol.

There's two big advantages to a percentile system over a D20, neither or which has to matter to anyone, but both of which do to some:

1. If you want to, you can vary advancement in less than 5% jumps;
2. More importantly, you can bake more special results into the roll without needing secondary rolls or running into some other math weirdness.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because it sets up the advancement so it runs into diminishing returns, and doesn't require you to use a die range and then ignore most of it?



From my POV a game system using a die that small intrinsically has problems, because I don't think things should be compressed that much. And of course you can have a big degree of advancement, you just don't do it all with to-hit. What you also probably don't do is have advancement do a bunch of things at once. None of those are flaws from where I sit.

I don't think this conversation is useful to continue. We value too different a set of things in a game here for this conversation to do anything but show that.

I think it just boils down to general preferences, yes. What I really liked about the Strike! concept though was interesting, and its a bit of a different discussion. Because Strike! uses such a small die, the philosophy is "only big stuff matters", so instead of thinking about 100 different things that might make small differences in the situation, just think in terms of the one or two big dramatic ones. It promotes a very 'cinematic' type of approach, because of course this is exactly what you do in film, you can't really portray 100 different things, you show off the 2 critical things that made the situation be heavily in your character's favor. I mean, there's actually STILL a nice range here. So you can go from -2 to +2, which is 5 possible different situations ranging from "this is very risky" to "this is very likely to succeed". Obviously you could also have -3/+3 for a 'sure thing' either way, though that gets used very sparingly of course.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it just boils down to general preferences, yes. What I really liked about the Strike! concept though was interesting, and its a bit of a different discussion. Because Strike! uses such a small die, the philosophy is "only big stuff matters", so instead of thinking about 100 different things that might make small differences in the situation, just think in terms of the one or two big dramatic ones.

Yeah, that's not a view I share. Its a big part of why I dislike D&D5e advantage, as a matter of fact.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's--not always true. It can be for a relatively simple one, but for an illustration of how to do this so its completely opaque, look at original Storyteller; once you're varying both target numbers per die and number of dice, I'd claim most people's intuitions are almost certainly faulty and they'll largely figure out they have no real sense of chances over time.

I'm not also sure I consider "can't figure the probabilities" a virtue, but I suspect you're more talking about precise probability (though I'm not sure why people being able to do that is a problem).

Sure, I said dice pool systems can be more involved, and that can certainly cloud things (Vampire would be an example of a game where I found it rather difficult to have a sense before rolling how good my chances are).

What I men by can't figure out the probabilities, is the player is gauging more by the situation itself than by the numbers, and so they aren't sitting there tallying them to arrive at a clear probability. This is just a matter of preference. Personally I find it a better play experience when a player doesn't know they have a 10% chance, but rather have a sense that the chance is rather low. To me that matches more how I experience life in general.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, that's not a view I share. Its a big part of why I dislike D&D5e advantage, as a matter of fact.

hehe, you won't like HoML, as I took 5e advantage and made that THE way you modify things to account for situational stuff. You take cover, you get advantage (or give disadvantage as the case may be). Beyond that your static bonuses for specific things will of course be significant (weapon proficiency, ability bonus, etc.). Of course in this game which power you are using, and whether you put in power or fate, etc. will make a big difference in terms of what you roll and what the total bonus is. I must say, paring it down this much does help make things go faster!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, I said dice pool systems can be more involved, and that can certainly cloud things (Vampire would be an example of a game where I found it rather difficult to have a sense before rolling how good my chances are).

What I men by can't figure out the probabilities, is the player is gauging more by the situation itself than by the numbers, and so they aren't sitting there tallying them to arrive at a clear probability. This is just a matter of preference. Personally I find it a better play experience when a player doesn't know they have a 10% chance, but rather have a sense that the chance is rather low. To me that matches more how I experience life in general.

Yeah, obviously IRL we don't know what the probabilities are, but we have a fairly good handle on RELATIVE risk, which is harder to gauge.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm really surprised, unless its just people coming out of the D&D-sphere, given the long history of dice pools. I mean, they go all the way back to the original Star Wars game, so I don't know why there's be any ingrained resistance.

It isn't just D&D. I've encountered it with players who a role master and GURPS fans too (and other systems). Something being around for a long time doesn't mean there aren't people who dislike it. I've been gaming since the mid-80s and dice pools, as far back as I can remember, have been one of those things certain players just don't like. This has also matched my experience trying to sell a dice pool based system to people. Type in dice pools on a forum and you will find lots of people saying how they just don't like them. I don't share their view but I can see that it exists (and I also realize you aren't going to talk someone out of a preference: even if they express reasons for why they don't like something, and you address those reasons, my sense with these things is there is usually more of an underlying 'feel' for why the person doesn't like them and that would still be present even if other criticisms were addressed)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, its interesting. While I have a visceral like for the d20, dice pool systems (at least in the old days) had the patina of 'new tech' so they kind of made your game seem shiny and sophisticated. That can be nice! d100, for me at least, OTOH always held this sort of feeling of early klunky skill-based systems that only kinda half worked, lol. I mean, its probably subjective, but at least for me d20 systems seem possibly a bit trad, but simple and elegant. Dice pool systems seem weird and inscrutable and attempting to be 'high tech', and d100 systems just seem overly technical but not really doing anything better than a good old d20, lol.

I am cool with d10 and d100. But when it comes to being married to a system (that I know I will have to play quite regularly and work with when I want to design) I found the dice pool approach is what worked best for me. Still I love Call of Cthulhu, I was on board for every edition of D&D up to the last two, and I am always happy to play an RPG with any system

 

[Thomas Shey]

hehe, you won't like HoML, as I took 5e advantage and made that THE way you modify things to account for situational stuff. You take cover, you get advantage (or give disadvantage as the case may be). Beyond that your static bonuses for specific things will of course be significant (weapon proficiency, ability bonus, etc.). Of course in this game which power you are using, and whether you put in power or fate, etc. will make a big difference in terms of what you roll and what the total bonus is. I must say, paring it down this much does help make things go faster!

You're not alone, its a trend I've seen in other places but it seriously puts me off. I don't insist on everything stacking indefinitely (the Shadow of the Demon Lord boon/bane approach is okay to me) but the "Once you've gotten this much benefit or problem nothing else matters" is a nonstarter to me.