Best Resolution System?

[SWBaxter]

Contrasting with die roll + mod >= TN, it is pretty much universally worse:

Sure, but that's like saying vanilla ice cream is universally worse than french vanilla ice cream. There's still not a whole lot of difference between the two, and no explanation for the implacable hatred displayed toward THAC0.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The current system:

Roll + bonus = AC hit

The THACO system:

THACO - (roll + bonus) = AC hit

Not exactly a huge difference, this was actually one of the smallest changes from 2E to 3E. I've never understood the widespread dislike of THAC0, unless it's due to some irrational fear of subtraction.

Exactly. Changing from THAC0 to roll + bonus = AC hit was really no change, except in the kind of math involved. The big change was from the combat matrices of original AD&D (with the repeating 20s, thieves and m-us needing 20 to hit AC 1, etc.) to the pure THAC0 of Zeb the Destroyer AD&D.

 

[Psion]

Sure, but that's like saying vanilla ice cream is universally worse than french vanilla ice cream.

No, it's really not. I have yet to see anyone provide any objective advantage to THAC0. The three reasons that I provided are objective in nature. If I tell you that my car is faster, less expensive, and gets better gas mileage, you may like your car better nonetheless, but that doesn't dispel those objective qualities. (If your car is a mini-van and has other advantages, that would be another thing.)

 

[The_Universe]

The only non-D20 resolution system I've ever really *liked* was D6 Star Wars. Roll and total the dice pool (all D6's) and compare to either an opposed skill check or a general difficulty category that could be generated randomly. If you beat the number, it works. If it you don't beat the target number, it doesnt.

really, not all that different from D20, but the larger number of dice tended to normalize rolls a bit, and you could say, "that sounds like it would be very difficult" and then have a DC associated with that general idea.

 

[weasel fierce]

Personally, Im a huge fan of % roll under.

i.e. you have a broadsword skill of 65%.

Everyone knows what % means, its intuitive, easy to figure out what your chances are, and you can make everything run off it.
BRP uses it, such as Call of Cthulhu and Runequest

 

[Chaldfont]

What do people think about the difference of linear vs. normal distributions in resolution systems? I used to think linear was the best because it was the easiest to figure out what your actual chance of success is (the most obvious of these being the d% roll).

But lately, after playing higher level D&D (where the bonuses start getting higher than the roll itself), I've started thinking more about normal distributions.

To those who have played a lot of games where this applies (WEG Star Wars, GURPS, Traveller)--what is your opinion?

 

[Psion]

What do people think about the difference of linear vs. normal distributions in resolution systems? I used to think linear was the best because it was the easiest to figure out what your actual chance of success is (the most obvious of these being the d% roll).

But lately, after playing higher level D&D (where the bonuses start getting higher than the roll itself), I've started thinking more about normal distributions.

I give linear props for being easy to figure odd, though 2 dice is fairly easy. 3 puts you in the situation where you need to memorize or have a table to know the odds; varying the number of dice means you need more than one table and forget about memorizing it.

I really don't see much in the way of advantages of center weighting. It's advocates state that it creates a high expectation of results close to your expected results, which is fair. But in many (most?) systems, it's largely irrelevant since you usually aren't looking for one result in either system; you are usually looking for a range. If you want 10- on 3d6, it's the same as 50% on percentile.

The only thing you should be considering when making a distinction between the two is what you want bonuses to do and/or if you count some sort of success level, what you want that to do. And that's too complex a subject for me to really sum up.

 

[SWBaxter]

No, it's really not. I have yet to see anyone provide any objective advantage to THAC0. The three reasons that I provided are objective in nature.

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I've already agreed that THAC0 is objectively worse. I just don't see how it's objectively so much worse that people hold it up as some huge problem resolved by 3E. That particular change was incredibly minor - as I've already shown objectively from the equations, the difference is a single arithmetic operation. So why the loathing?

 

[Psion]

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I've already agreed that THAC0 is objectively worse. I just don't see how it's objectively so much worse that people hold it up as some huge problem resolved by 3E. That particular change was incredibly minor - as I've already shown objectively from the equations, the difference is a single arithmetic operation. So why the loathing?

No loathing; I just didn't understand what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the objective qualities I cited weren't objective. Mea culpa.

I don't think we are on a totally different page here. I think the differences are, in general minor, but I do think they can be telling, and it streamlines the game just a bit. In general I consider differences in game systems to be trade offs; I consider THAC0 to be just one of a few exceptions in which there is no bona fide advantages in sticking with.

 

[Campbell]

Although I prefer far more randomness then a single d10 provides I'm a fan of simulated success levels ala the Cinematic Unisystem. It retains the advantage of modeling multiple successes for complex skill tasks in the case of lengthier tasks while maintaining the ease of consulting a single die.