Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8396884" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes, it melds roll-and-keep methods with DC methods. You might also look at karma in ED for the idea of extra dice bought with XP. ED has a different way of reading the dice, but it does use mixed dice, which at the time was novel. The new L5R mechanics, too.The most common problem identified with roll-and-keep methods is that it is hard for players to at-a-glance understand their odds. BW for example includes a table to help DMs know what they are doing when they set targets. I think your method has this same problem.For me the benefit of roll-and-keep is just how nice it feels in play. It's tactile, and you can produce some interesting nuance in what dice are on offer and how you form them into pools. And on the other hand, the benefit of DC is it's easy for players to understand. Your method takes a shot at being best-of-both-worlds, albeit risks producing a worst-of-both-worlds feel in play. It'll be vital to playtest it early with real players.For me it distracts from what you might achieve. I can acknowledge the nuance of adding N-1, but then it just means I might get N anyway. My intuition is that it will be deflating to do the work of re-rolling only to get the same number. It would be better to playtest the system without, and bring it back in if it feels justified.One thought though, would be to have only certain dice able to explode. So players will feel excited to get access to those special dice. Don't use N-1+roll though, start with N+roll. It's less fiddly, and nearly certain to be more satisfying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8396884, member: 71699"] Yes, it melds roll-and-keep methods with DC methods. You might also look at karma in ED for the idea of extra dice bought with XP. ED has a different way of reading the dice, but it does use mixed dice, which at the time was novel. The new L5R mechanics, too. The most common problem identified with roll-and-keep methods is that it is hard for players to at-a-glance understand their odds. BW for example includes a table to help DMs know what they are doing when they set targets. I think your method has this same problem. For me the benefit of roll-and-keep is just how nice it feels in play. It's tactile, and you can produce some interesting nuance in what dice are on offer and how you form them into pools. And on the other hand, the benefit of DC is it's easy for players to understand. Your method takes a shot at being best-of-both-worlds, albeit risks producing a worst-of-both-worlds feel in play. It'll be vital to [B]playtest [/B]it early with real players. For me it distracts from what you might achieve. I can acknowledge the nuance of adding N-1, but then it just means I might get N anyway. My intuition is that it will be deflating to do the work of re-rolling only to get the same number. It would be better to playtest the system without, and bring it back in if it feels justified. One thought though, would be to have only certain dice able to explode. So players will feel excited to get access to those special dice. Don't use N-1+roll though, start with N+roll. It's less fiddly, and nearly certain to be more satisfying. [/QUOTE]

Verification