Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Bill Zebub]

I dunno; you still have to do some addition during the resolution process (i.e. roll the D20, add the +2, see if it makes the DC). The roll-low percentile case you can do what math there is before the dice get engaged and just see if you made equal or under. I think that's sometimes a non-trivial difference.

I usually subtract the modifier from the DC, then roll....

Its a defensible argument. Though at the point someone doesn't have an intuitive sense for what "60%" means, they don't have a relational sense of any odds at all, so its moot.

It's not that people can't do the math. "Oh, 60%...that's six out of 10!" It's that people struggle to understand the difference between statistical patterns and single events.

 

[Bill Zebub]

P.S. I'll note that whenever these discussions arise about what kind of dice operations are easier or harder for people, almost nobody ever says, "I struggle with..." It's always, "Other people struggle with..."

I do it, too.

Interesting, huh?

 

[Thomas Shey]

100% agree.

All RPGs are such terrible approximations of reality that it's hard to take seriously any claim of "realism" or "logic". Sure a 0.001% approximation is more realistic than a 0.0005% approximation. But....really? If somebody enjoys fiddling with the additional complexity, then have at it! Enjoy! But let's not kid ourselves that any of these are actually realistic.

While you're not wrong, as with most such things "Matters of degree matter." You can make an argument that to what degree they do is subjective, but they still do. I notice this in particular in cases where the lumping has gotten really severe (though in some cases I can shrug it off to genre/style conventions); for example, a game that has a single Piloting skill says it doesn't matter whether you trained on a light fixed-wing or a heavy helicopter, and that's a bridge pretty far outside of a genre convention.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not that people can't do the math. "Oh, 60%...that's six out of 10!" It's that people struggle to understand the difference between statistical patterns and single events.

Oh, yeah. And the fact that probability doesn't have memory, which some people fall into thinking it does, even if just subconciously.

 

[Thomas Shey]

P.S. I'll note that whenever these discussions arise about what kind of dice operations are easier or harder for people, almost nobody ever says, "I struggle with..." It's always, "Other people struggle with..."

I do it, too.

Interesting, huh?

Oh, I'll freely admit some die resolution systems are easier for me than others. And some is intrinsic and some is experience. Reading Hero System "Normal Damage" dice is second nature to me even though I haven't done it for years now, but I can understand why some people fight with it a bit.

 

[Reynard]

P.S. I'll note that whenever these discussions arise about what kind of dice operations are easier or harder for people, almost nobody ever says, "I struggle with..." It's always, "Other people struggle with..."

I do it, too.

Interesting, huh?

I'm the worst of both worlds: I can't figure out why folks have issues, one way or another. It is just arithmetic, one way or another. The whole THAC0 complaints has always struck me overdone.

I know that people have trouble with certain kinds of operations, and it isn't a reflection of intelligence or anything like that, but I admit I still roll my eyes when people complain about "roll under."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm the worst of both worlds: I can't figure out why folks have issues, one way or another. It is just arithmetic, one way or another. The whole THAC0 complaints has always struck me overdone.

I know that people have trouble with certain kinds of operations, and it isn't a reflection of intelligence or anything like that, but I admit I still roll my eyes when people complain about "roll under."

Some of its just perceptual speed as much as anything else. I can handle most dice resolution methods without too much of a struggle, but I suspect heavily symbol-laden dice would cause me some serious learning time consumption; ironically it would probably be much longer than "A 4 also means this" because my brain is already trained to look for 4s.

Of course I'm dylexic , so my case may not be typical.

 

[500 Toads]

Sometimes, the math is trickier -- for dice pools with exploding dice, say. If you're playing original Shadowrun and looking at rolling 7d6 with a target number of 9 (c/o exploding d6) and trying to estimate the chances that you'll roll at least four successes -- that's a bit more complicated to compute on the fly than most non-pool systems w/o the aid of something like anydice.com. If you're trying to figure out how to optimize your Dodge Pool allocation when you're expecting multiple attacks before your next action refreshes the pool, and estimating successes you'll get vs want for each... well, your GM probably doesn't want you to slow down the game in order to crunch the numbers, hah.

Shadowrun also addressed the "related skills" aspect with both specializations ( Firearms / Submachine Guns / Ingram Smartgun, w/e) and with its skill web that connected 'related' skills but where your target numbers increased with every edge traversed. Traverse an edge or two and things might be difficult or very hard but still plausible; attempt to use your Conjuring skill in lieu of Demolitions to disarm a bomb and... well, you could try, but if your dice didn't explode repeatedly, you would explode (once).

 

[Fenris-77]

I find myself disinclined to run systems with chunky skill lists. At this point I really don't care about 6 different firearms skills. Not do I find myself smiling at the prospect of having to figure out which of 80+ skills applies in a given situation. This is all personal preference, but I prefer games that come with a little bit less cognitive overhead and as a result sit a bit lighter on the table during play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem with narrow skills even from a realism POV (and admittedly GURPS tries to address this with defaulting) is many skills are either closely related, or are extremely unlikely to pick up at a decent level without picking up certain other skills. As a hypothetical example, you could have "Slashing Swords" skill. Now, there are things about usage and balance there that means your skill there isn't going to entirely transfer over to other weapon usage. But it isn't going to be completely independent of them, either; you probably could carry over a lot of that skill to, say, axes, and there are even some elements of your training and practice that will transfer over to something like spears, even though the balance and usage is quite different.

So if you want to do it right you either have to do a middlin' complex interrelationship thing in your skills, or shrug and either under or overstate how these things connect by your choice of skill lumping or splitting.

I prefer option 1. If skills are to some degree interelated, and proficiency in one expects some amount of proficiency in related skills, let the game reflect that. Create skill groups that provide proficiency, but also include the ability to specialize for enhanced effect.

Of course, you had to expect I'd give that answer.