Does a GM need more dice than a d2?

[jdrakeh]

Are some of these DoS systems beyond rule zero?

Most of them are "beyond rule zero" as you say. These systems have actual values tied to degrees of success and meaningful mechanics devoted to them.

 

[GMMichael]

The game needs more randomness not less. I really enjoy WFRP and I realized it’s because you can go from fully standing to down on the ground from one unlucky hit from a goblin. It makes combat matter. . .

Scrabble is an excellent, fun game, but when all that you draw is vowels, the whole game will be an uphill battle.

Which is my way of saying: more randomness doesn't necessarily make for better combat. If a player starts to realize he's going to take x damage each round if he keeps up his current tactics - he might change them around a bit.

Obviously it depends on what you are going for, but in general I would say that binary potential results is suggestive of binary outcomes, which I don't like. . . So if the players do a thing and the GM can't quite decide what happens, the GM rolls 3d6 and gets a 17 something really cool or beneficial results, while if they rolled a 3 the results would be disastrous.

I'm down with the bell curve too, but it isn't always implemented well, and has the potential side effect of slowing down what should be a fast-paced scene. And yes, the d2 suggests binary outcomes which 1) are common in certain mass-market RPGs, and 2) are not immune to GM interpretation.

The granularity with d2 goes from Auto-Failure <--> 50% <--> Auto-Success. This allows no room for cleverness on players, no chance to shift the odds for 40% to 65% though intelligent play, consumable resources, etc. And that's a big part of this being a game. An integral part in what players enjoy.

Players can keep being clever and enjoy their metagaming if the GM has only a d2. I didn't propose that players also be limited to a d2...

But what about those target numbers that PCs would be manipulating in the hopes of defeating the GM's d2? On the one hand, it leaves players the potential to shift their outcomes twice: from auto-fail to d2, or from d2 to auto-success. So there is some room for cleverness.

More to my curiosity though: how many d2 rolls does a PC face before it's statistically clear that her odds are 50% instead of 65%? A PC can strive to eke out another 5 or 10% of favor from the rules, but is that even measurable over the course of a typical combat? Sure, if you're wargaming, and all you do is roll dice for hours, 5% might be a valuable difference. In a typical game, say D&D 5e, and typical battle, I'm not convinced that the brainpower overhead spent on getting 5, 10, 15% better odds is worth it. What could make a bigger and more immersive difference is what actions the PC takes, not what she rolls.

 

[clearstream]

"Need" is such a strong word.

I think, when you are doing just one or two checks, it probably won't matter much. But, when you consider a campaign over longer timescales (and many more rolls) the difference between "Yes/No/50-50" and using a more nuanced approach to success and failure would become palpable.

For me one chief deficiency in d2 is also immediate: I can't have meaningful situational or character-based modifiers. Can't really add +1 to a binary, heads/tails dice method.

That's not to disagree with your point. Only to say that there are both long term and immediate features that will be palpable.

 

[TheSword]

Scrabble is an excellent, fun game, but when all that you draw is vowels, the whole game will be an uphill battle.

Which is my way of saying: more randomness doesn't necessarily make for better combat. If a player starts to realize he's going to take x damage each round if he keeps up his current tactics - he might change them around a bit.

That’s because the randomness in scrabble limits your ability to play the game. Whereas greater randomness in combat would enhance the game.

Instead of changing tactics because you can easily anticipate and counter your foes damage. Why not change tactics because the combat has changed in some strange and unpredictable way.

I’m not actually talking about death here. Though 5e is limited by the only real damage a player can take being HP. And the only real outcome of losing Hp is death, sometimes TPK and failure of the campaign. WFRP is more deadly yes, but it is better at keeping the game going.

 

[Umbran]

For me one chief deficiency in d2 is also immediate: I can't have meaningful situational or character-based modifiers. Can't really add +1 to a binary, heads/tails dice method.

Well, I think part of the point is that +1 isn't actually all that meaningful. What you can't have is granular modifiers.

In this scheme, any "meaningful" modifier would move you one step on the "No --- 50/50 --- Yes" scale. If you are at 50/50, any meaningful modifier puts you at either No, or Yes.

 

[Blue]

More to my curiosity though: how many d2 rolls does a PC face before it's statistically clear that her odds are 50% instead of 65%? A PC can strive to eke out another 5 or 10% of favor from the rules, but is that even measurable over the course of a typical combat? Sure, if you're wargaming, and all you do is roll dice for hours, 5% might be a valuable difference. In a typical game, say D&D 5e, and typical battle, I'm not convinced that the brainpower overhead spent on getting 5, 10, 15% better odds is worth it. What could make a bigger and more immersive difference is what actions the PC takes, not what she rolls.

Slightly more than one in seven rolls will have a different result with a 50% vs. 65% chance. Since a roll is supposed to have conseqeucnes, that means that there should be a meaningful change multiple times per session. Heck, it will likely come up every combat scene because of the higher density of rolls.

 

[aramis erak]

True, and we obviously can't put the square peg into the circular hole. Are some of these DoS systems beyond rule zero?

While I suspect you ,mean Gygax's, many games reject that axiom, instead going with "Don't be a jerk," (or harsher wording of same sentiment_ as their rule zero.

The games I've run where the rule zero isn't the Gygax one also put in degrees of success (if only the CF/F/S/CS 4); several of them also make rules authority group. not GM.

So, depending upion the game and the group, it ,may very well be WAY outside "rule zero" turf.

 

[Sanguinarious]

Yes.

 

[Tonguez]

At the point youre using d2 you may as well just wing it - part of the game element of RPGs is uncertainty, more randomness is more fun

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't personally think assuming something with a 25% change of failure as always treating as a success or the inverse as a failure is a good way to manage things, so I guess I'm disagreeing with the premise.