Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Kannik]

Agreed. But...my tolerance for replacing numbers with unique symbols is limited. I'm ok with TOR dice (replacing the 11 and 12 on a d12 with Gandalf and Sauron runes) but more than that is too much. IMO.

-nods- I'm with you on that as well! I'm not a fan of "unique dice" at all, if for no other reason than it forces buying those dice, and then maybe you don't have enough, and then have to use a chart, and... all that. Gets messy.

Plus, as I discovered writing my Aurora system, having special dice, or doing something like "4+ on the die counts as a success", reduces the number of possible outcomes and therefore makes for a much less granular spread of both skill/character growth as well as the impact difficulty/modifiers have on the dice roll.

So I prefer using bog standard dice, added up in bog standard ways (again within limits to keep the resolution flowing quickly -- no counting up 12 dice, for example).

Which doesn't mean I don't like something like Burning Wheel as used in Mouse Guard (4+ is a success, a 6 is a special type of success, and they make special dice to illustrate it), or FitD games (6+ is needed for a success). I still find them both cool even as their statistical idiosyncrasies grate against me.

 

[Kannik]

I'm curious, doesn't anyone like a mechanic of opposed rolls? I find them to be more engaging for the table than rolling against arbitrary levels of difficulty.

I like opposed rolls, and use/design with them often, especially when the PCs are facing off against equal/higher tier opponents. Adds a feel of two beings with full agency working against each other.

However, I'm not keen at all using opposed rolls for all skill tests, as the dual variability undermines the reliability and visceral feel of a bell-curve distribution.

 

[Fenris-77]

I like them a lot for combat stuff like disarms and whatnot. It makes more intuitive sense to me that 'hitting' and them applying a DC-based roll to save or avoid consequences.