Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tinker" data-source="post: 7449171" data-attributes="member: 46684">I'm a big fan of the single mechanic, for the reasons stated by others. Some of the early mechanics really didn't work very well. Surprise was OK, for example, until a character with a higher-than-normal chance of surprising an opponent encountered one with a lower-than-normal chance of being surprised. Some didn't even roll d6s.I've also noticed the pointlessness of ability scores, as opposed to modifiers. I'm planning to try getting rid of the scores and just using the modifiers. After a brief phase of nostalgia for ability checks, I much prefer the greater openness of d20 to varying difficulties in ability checks, skills and saving throws, compared to the AD&amp;D roll-under-x approach.I'm tempted to try moving away from the die you roll always being d20. It bugs me that the random factor is so big; I don't think it is realistic that an average commoner should have a 10% chance of missing a 3ft long jump, but also a 10% chance of making a 19ft jump, for example. But I do recognise the complexity issue if you don't have a standard die roll. You could reduce the random factor by using 2d10 , 3d6 or 2d6+3, for example, and it might be better for resolving Jump checks. But probably that isn't random enough for a hit roll or a reflex save, where so many factors that might make a difference are not specified in the game mechanics. Realism would suggest wide, flat outcome distributions for some situations, and tight, humped distributions for others. But that means remembering what dice to roll when, and you're almost back to having a different mechanic for everything. So I guess I'll stick with d20 for the foreseeable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tinker, post: 7449171, member: 46684"] I'm a big fan of the single mechanic, for the reasons stated by others. Some of the early mechanics really didn't work very well. Surprise was OK, for example, until a character with a higher-than-normal chance of surprising an opponent encountered one with a lower-than-normal chance of being surprised. Some didn't even roll d6s. I've also noticed the pointlessness of ability scores, as opposed to modifiers. I'm planning to try getting rid of the scores and just using the modifiers. After a brief phase of nostalgia for ability checks, I much prefer the greater openness of d20 to varying difficulties in ability checks, skills and saving throws, compared to the AD&D roll-under-x approach. I'm tempted to try moving away from the die you roll always being d20. It bugs me that the random factor is so big; I don't think it is realistic that an average commoner should have a 10% chance of missing a 3ft long jump, but also a 10% chance of making a 19ft jump, for example. But I do recognise the complexity issue if you don't have a standard die roll. You could reduce the random factor by using 2d10 , 3d6 or 2d6+3, for example, and it might be better for resolving Jump checks. But probably that isn't random enough for a hit roll or a reflex save, where so many factors that might make a difference are not specified in the game mechanics. Realism would suggest wide, flat outcome distributions for some situations, and tight, humped distributions for others. But that means remembering what dice to roll when, and you're almost back to having a different mechanic for everything. So I guess I'll stick with d20 for the foreseeable. [/QUOTE]

Verification