Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 5163568" data-attributes="member: 71699">[Edited] Among the responses to his blog Chris eventually says...My major beef with the d20 is that, taken unmodified, its swing in results doesn’t resemble real life at all. It resembles arbitrary randomness. Skilled folks aren’t so subject that much to luck. The modifiers built into the game offset the d20’s swing for sure, though. ...and I guess he had that in the back of his mind when he made the design move that he did. Switching from a line to a curve was never a great solution to his initial problem (low hit chances), but could it be a reasonable solution to that completely different problem (emulating real-life)?I agree with Chris that real-life doesn't feel linear. Most attempts to model real-life use curves of one sort or another. Setting aside the obvious question of how much you care about emulating real-life in your game, there is another objection to be made, and that is that D&amp;D already uses multiple dice rolls to resolve actions.To resolve a fight, you will roll many dice. You will roll a d20 followed by (most commonly) d8s or d6s; and then if the fight isn't over, you'll roll more dice. Your overall probability of winning will plot neatly onto a curve that will be bellish looking. Still, what about single rolls for skills? 4ed introduced skill challenges: and, of course, they use multiple rolls.Hmm... but this leads around in a circle. Was Chris' issue really just missing too often?-vkSide note: I do have a mild dislike of using multiple dice for&nbsp; core determination, entirely related to the issue that +1 means&nbsp; different things depending on where you started from. That discomforts&nbsp; me when I consider buffs and debuffs, such as aid another, fighting&nbsp; defensively, combat advantage, and magic: I believe it results in a&nbsp; narrowing of mechanically good options for play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 5163568, member: 71699"] [Edited] Among the responses to his blog Chris eventually says... [I]My major beef with the d20 is that, taken unmodified, its swing in results doesn’t resemble real life at all. It resembles arbitrary randomness. Skilled folks aren’t so subject that much to luck. The modifiers built into the game offset the d20’s swing for sure, though.[/I] ...and I guess he had that in the back of his mind when he made the design move that he did. Switching from a line to a curve was never a great solution to his initial problem (low hit chances), but could it be a reasonable solution to that completely different problem (emulating real-life)? [B]I agree with Chris that real-life doesn't feel linear. [/B]Most attempts to model real-life use curves of one sort or another. Setting aside the obvious question of how much you care about emulating real-life in your game, there is another objection to be made, and that is that D&D already uses multiple dice rolls to resolve actions. [B]To resolve a fight, you will roll many dice. [/B]You will roll a d20 followed by (most commonly) d8s or d6s; and then if the fight isn't over, you'll roll more dice. Your overall probability of winning will plot neatly onto a curve that will be bellish looking. Still, what about single rolls for skills? 4ed introduced skill challenges: and, of course, they use multiple rolls. Hmm... but this leads around in a circle. Was Chris' issue [I]really [/I]just missing too often? -vk [I] [B]Side note: [/B]I do have a mild dislike of using multiple dice for core determination, entirely related to the issue that +1 means different things depending on where you started from. That discomforts me when I consider buffs and debuffs, such as aid another, fighting defensively, combat advantage, and magic: I believe it results in a narrowing of mechanically good options for play.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification