Math on low-roll wins vs blackjack...

[billd91]

With the example given and the spread in skills, I’m perfectly fine with low wins because the higher skill is still winning a great deal more than the lower skill. I don’t see a particular reason why the difference should lead to an overwhelming difference (9:1) in win rates when substantially (3:1) is enough.
The more interesting question would be: are there any cases where the lower skilled character’s chance of winning ever exceeds the higher skilled character’s chance?

 

[aramis erak]

Exactly. That's where the discussion has been mostly focused. That light purple block where it makes the difference.

Low-roll wins gives the lower-skilled character an advantage.

Blackjack gives the higher-skilled character an advantage.

Which is "right" or "better" is the question.

Realistically? Blackjack.
But it's common enough a situation that playability matters.

 

[overgeeked]

Realistically? Blackjack.

I agree.

But it's common enough a situation that playability matters.

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t see either one as more or less playable.

 

[aramis erak]

I agree.

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t see either one as more or less playable.

two factors...
1) Roll low = better is more consistent with Nat 1 = Critical. Keeping directions the same is a simplification (a minor one, but still a slight easing of required memort
2) lower skill losing less makes low skill less punishing on players; in case you're not aware, PC's have a lot of low skills in DB...

Both issues making the game easier to play, even if slightly, at the expense of realism.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Simplified it down to d4 to make it more understandable, but a 20x20 table would look similar. Let me know if I made any mistakes.

 

[Committed Hero]

The more interesting question would be: are there any cases where the lower skilled character’s chance of winning ever exceeds the higher skilled character’s chance?

There can be systems where a low-skilled person's proportion of critical successes exceed those of a more skilled character. If I need a natural 20 to hit that dragon, all of my hits are going to be crits!

 

[Mannahnin]

There can be systems where a low-skilled person's proportion of critical successes exceed those of a more skilled character. If I need a natural 20 to hit that dragon, all of my hits are going to be crits!

(Absent a rule disallowing same)

 

[Bill Zebub]

There can be systems where a low-skilled person's proportion of critical successes exceed those of a more skilled character. If I need a natural 20 to hit that dragon, all of my hits are going to be crits!

Oh I've been searching for the right analogy here and that's perfect! "If you have a lower attack bonus more of your hits will be crits (in D&D)."

 

[Wolfpack48]

Which brings up another question. Are crits 1 or 20 in a high roll system? I'm assuming crits still beat regular successes.

 

[overgeeked]

Which brings up another question. Are crits 1 or 20 in a high roll system? I'm assuming crits still beat regular successes.

In the context of Dragonbane, yes, a 1 is still a crit and a 20 is still a fumble. You're not fundamentally rewriting the game, you're just looking for highest roll without going over in this one niche case.