Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5672279" data-attributes="member: 85870">Okay, so I recognize that fiddling with the baseline mechanics of Savage  Worlds may be considered heresy in some circles. The whole point of  using SW at all is to make things FAST! FUN! FURIOUS! and take out a lot  of the nagging "fiddling" with numbers that slows other systems down. But hear me out here. After  playing GURPS for a little while (first experience ever with the  system) the last 4 or 5 months, I came to appreciate a bit some of what  it does. As a self-proclaimed "skill monkey" type when playing D&D, I  really appreciated GURPS' ability to model well-roundedness. However,  to model that effectively, GURPS gets infinitely more granular than  Savage Worlds--which, as much as I like Savage Worlds, is an admitted  weakness of the system (SW is anything BUT granular to a high degree). The  second thing GURPS made me realize is that even though I detest "roll  under" systems, and specifically some of the decisions about the way  GURPS implements it, I really, really, REALLY like bell curve dice  mechanics. It's purely personal preference, I realize, but to me  the bell curve is really "how the universe works." You have middle of  the road, and you have outliers, and all things being equal, results  push to the middle of the curve. So, in a fit of, I don't know,  insanity? Slap-happy craziness? I started thinking of how you could  model a die-step mechanic like Savage Worlds, make it a bell curve, but  also make it a bit (not a ton, but just a bit) more granular. Here's the results of my efforts so far. Dice Mechanics ChangesChange  the flat distribution "either/or" trait die/wild die into a normal  distribution. In other words, instead of rolling both dice and taking the best result of either, we now add them together.  Wild die is still always a d6, and explodes normally. Trait  dice progress normally, but have more options at the top end. Since  we're moving to a bell curve, this obviously changes the math (more on  that later), but in effect it doesn't change the core mechanic--roll  dice, roll high, and try and beat the target number. In addition  to the standard dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12), trait dice now also have  d14, d16, and d20 at the high end (the d14 and d16 you can buy as part  of a "zocchi" set, or simply use a digital dice rolling program). However, to even out the normal distribution slightly, trait dice no longer explode, only the wild die. Target Number ChangesObviously,  making this change totally screws up the assumed TN probabilities--but  here's the thing, it doesn't necessarily matter of you account for them.  By default, SW assumes a TN 4 for everything, though it's a bit  disingenuous, as situational modifiers are added and subtracted from  the player's roll. They could just as easily simply raise or lower the  TN appropriately. Essentially, that's what will happen here. Bad  Axe Game's Trailblazer breaks down the assumed inherent probabilities  for D&D 3.5, with the baseline assumption that at all  level-appropriate challenges, the player should have a 65% chance of  success. However, GM's change DCs all the time circumstantially. "Well,  the floor is wet with rain, so that DC is actually an 18, not a 16." Having  run some initial probability numbers (thank you, thank you to the  creator of Anydice.com. As soon as I can reasonably afford to pay you  some money I will do so), it's fairly easy to create a reasonable  "curve" for a target number using trait die + d6 wild die. Starting with a d4 + d6 at the lowest, a player has a 58% chance of rolling AT LEAST a 6. d6 + d6, 58% chance of rolling at least a 7d8 + d6, 58% chance of rolling at least an 8d10 + d6, 57% chance of rolling at least a 9d12 + d6, 58% of rolling at least a 10d14 + d6 57% of rolling at least an 11d16 + d6 58% of rolling at least a 12d20 + d6 60% of rolling at least a 14Each  step up or down the scale raises or lowers the probability between  6-13%, with the range of change narrowing the higher up the die scale we  move (i.e., a 1-step change to a TN with a d4 skill die is a 13%  variance; a 1-step change with a d14 skill die is closer to 7%). So what's the point of all this again, you might ask? Granularity. By  increasing the number possible die steps, and not being beholden to a  static TN, we can create a much more fluid, and in my opinion, realistic  way of resolution, without losing the speed and streamlining a die-step  mechanic offers. As a side note, if someone wanted to codify a "strict" TN rating, it's actually fairly easy to do for this system: TN 4 = Very easyTN 6 = EasyTN 8 = AverageTN 10 = Somewhat DifficultTN 12 = Moderately DifficultTN 14 = Very Difficult TN  16 = Limits of Human Capacity (i.e., someone who is one of the top-10  greatest ever in history only has a 45% chance of success). The  point behind this, though, is that since we're operating on a bell curve  now, it's much easier to keep the TN closer to the center, without  disadvantaging the low end too much, or making life too easy for the  high end. A TN 8, for example, has a 29% of success for someone  with only a d4 trait die, but is still only a 79% for a d16. Yeah,  that's a big difference--but a d4 is the effective equivalent of a Level  1 adventurer, and a d16 is considered a paragon of that skill / trait. I've done some math on the combat portion as well, but I'll have to post them later on when I get more time.</blockquote>

Verification