Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5998091" data-attributes="member: 6688937">The first part is just dependent on the DCs and where they are set (for instance, they don't have to be spaced evenly). The second part is the real meat of your thinking, and certainly true.Sounds like a houserule/module to me. I'd replace d20's with 2d10. I think the 3e UA had a suggestion along those lines, maybe. You could use 3d6 (then you're playing GURPS <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />), but might have to modify crit rules. I've played a game called Old School Hack, which despite its name wasn't very Old School in mechanics, and it used a 2d10. It was easy to use. My experience with Fudge and FATE indicate that four dice have a little too much centrality and you can just compare bonuses for any extended roll-offs like combat. This is, of course, a matter of preference for anyone. Attaching adjectives to probabilities like "the average untrained untalented person can succeed about half the time" seems rather squishy to me. (Does that make it "Hard", "Easy", or "Typical"? Won't that depend on the type of task at hand? What about skills that don't make sense to use untrained?)</blockquote>