Question about optional dice method.

[Obryn]

Yeah, it would be needlessly complicated. Especially when it comes to bonuses or penalties.

I would mostly think, "Whoever designed this didn't really think this through."

 

[Desh-Rae-Halra]

Yeah, it would be needlessly complicated. Especially when it comes to bonuses or penalties.

I would mostly think, "Whoever designed this didn't really think this through."

Agreed, but I wouldn't be as friendly about it. My reaction would be more like WTF?!? It would feel to me like this is a disorganized game, with arbitrary goals (target numbers).
Do those numbers change on different tasks (Ex. One challenge you have to roll a 3, 8, or 17, but the next challenge you have to roll a 5, 6, or 12?

 

[pdzoch]

Many many years ago I did play a game session where the dice roll wasn't the simpler roll-above-a-certain-number mechanic. However, the roll requirement was a range on the die, not an random or seemingly arbitrary selection of numbers on the die. A reason (which is very important) was provided. The scenario that triggered the die roll was the cracking of a safe with a combination lock. We rolled a d20 for each digit on the lock and the range was +/- 5 of the actual combination digit. So, to crack the "8" on the first digit on the lock, we had to roll a 3-13 on a d20. I can not remember if we were told ahead of time, but I do remember that we were not trying to roll high, but roll within success range. It made sense at the time and we were happy with using the unusual mechanic for the scenario. It was not a commonplace or system mechanic, however.

 

[Argyle King]

I almost feel as though the suggested system would work better with a deck of cards; ask me to get a certain card. "You need either a 7 or a 2."

While it kinda seems like the same thing (and maybe it is), it doesn't seem as hard for me to accept psychologically. I cannot explain why.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Depending on how familiar someone is with different types of dice models, and how you explain it to them, it's really not that weird at all. There is at least one game that I know of which uses this sort of range band mechanic, and it is The Great War of Magellan. In order to succeed at (for example) punching a dude, you would need to roll (for example) above 7 and not above 13. While the actual math of the system could use some refinement, they actually had a pretty good reason for using this method instead of anything traditional. In short, they were taking your attack roll and your target's defense roll, and superimposing both onto the same die.

I'm sure you can imagine a system where you have a skill of 13, so you need to roll 13 or lower on a d20 in order to hit; and if your opponent gets a chance to dodge, then maybe they need to roll 7 or less in order to succeed at dodging. In GWoM, given those a numbers, a roll of 1-7 indicates that you would have hit, except they dodged; a roll between 8-13 means you hit; and a roll of 14+ means that you missed because you're not very good at fighting.

Ignoring how bad those specific numbers are, the concept is actually pretty sound. Instead of two die rolls, made by two players, each against their own target numbers; you get one die roll, by one player, compared to two target numbers.

Of course, GWoM then went off the deep end by introducing random other results that didn't correspond to skill levels. Something like, on a roll of exactly 5 you would fall prone, or on a roll of exactly 17 you hit their face and stun them for a round (these being two random numbers that are entirely unrelated to the skill level of either participant, and seemingly supersede the basic outcome of the die roll). As neat as the basic range band mechanic is, I really can't defend this part at all.

 

[Argyle King]

Depending on how familiar someone is with different types of dice models, and how you explain it to them, it's really not that weird at all. There is at least one game that I know of which uses this sort of range band mechanic, and it is The Great War of Magellan. In order to succeed at (for example) punching a dude, you would need to roll (for example) above 7 and not above 13. While the actual math of the system could use some refinement, they actually had a pretty good reason for using this method instead of anything traditional. In short, they were taking your attack roll and your target's defense roll, and superimposing both onto the same die.

I'm sure you can imagine a system where you have a skill of 13, so you need to roll 13 or lower on a d20 in order to hit; and if your opponent gets a chance to dodge, then maybe they need to roll 7 or less in order to succeed at dodging. In GWoM, given those a numbers, a roll of 1-7 indicates that you would have hit, except they dodged; a roll between 8-13 means you hit; and a roll of 14+ means that you missed because you're not very good at fighting.

Ignoring how bad those specific numbers are, the concept is actually pretty sound. Instead of two die rolls, made by two players, each against their own target numbers; you get one die roll, by one player, compared to two target numbers.

Of course, GWoM then went off the deep end by introducing random other results that didn't correspond to skill levels. Something like, on a roll of exactly 5 you would fall prone, or on a roll of exactly 17 you hit their face and stun them for a round (these being two random numbers that are entirely unrelated to the skill level of either participant, and seemingly supersede the basic outcome of the die roll). As neat as the basic range band mechanic is, I really can't defend this part at all.

In that game, is there a mechanical difference between missing because the other guy dodged and just missing?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In that game, is there a mechanical difference between missing because the other guy dodged and just missing?

I don't think so, no. To the best of my understanding, you could have just subtracted the defender's dodge chance from the attacker's skill, and said you needed a roll of 6 or less in order to hit. The only benefits of the range band are that you can skip the subtraction step, and that the die roll gives you more information about how to narrate the resolution of the action.

 

[JohnnyDavids13]

It isn't something I would disagree with personally, but simplicity, and consistency is always better. Unless there is a solid reason to have it be in the middle I say keep it high or low.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

My very first reaction is that it's seriously unnecessary complication - unless there's more than binary results based on the roll. In other words, if you normally need to roll... a 13 to hit and if you roll 12 or less you don't hit that means 8 out of 20 results will succeed and 12 will fail to hit. All well and good; easy to work with, easy to understand. If you take that range of 8 successes and put it in the middle of the possible d20 rolls - say, 1-6 misses, 7-14 hits, 15 to 20 misses - then you're looking at a MUCH more complicated system. How would bonuses apply to that range? Would some adjust the roll up and some adjust the minimum of the RANGE downward? What in the world would that actually GET you mechanics-wise? Even if you're introducing a sliding scale of successful results based on where your attack roll actually falls in the range for success it's just got to be easier to work with the numbers if you keep success at one end of a linear scale and failure at the other.

As noted upthread there's a POSSIBILITY that some odd scheme like that might work (or make sense at all...) but it most certainly isn't a shift in mechanics that would be useful in and of itself without a LOT more mechanical reasoning behind it. It would be even whackier for the chances for success to be separated in multiple groups across the 20 normal die possibilities. What would be the GAIN? Without some additional idea actually driving the change the change doesn't make a bit of sense.

That's my initial reaction.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Many many years ago I did play a game session where the dice roll wasn't the simpler roll-above-a-certain-number mechanic. However, the roll requirement was a range on the die, not an random or seemingly arbitrary selection of numbers on the die. A reason (which is very important) was provided. The scenario that triggered the die roll was the cracking of a safe with a combination lock. We rolled a d20 for each digit on the lock and the range was +/- 5 of the actual combination digit. So, to crack the "8" on the first digit on the lock, we had to roll a 3-13 on a d20. I can not remember if we were told ahead of time, but I do remember that we were not trying to roll high, but roll within success range.

But deciding to institute a mechanic where you roll +/-5 around a single target number is no different than just saying, "Roll 10 or higher." But the latter is VASTLY easier to figure out what is needed, to apply bonuses to, etc. And it even introduces new "WTF?" flaws into things to set your range of success AROUND a target number like that. For example, if the number on the combination is "2", where do the +/-5 results fall? I mean, you can't roll 5 less than 2 on a d20, right? So if the combination number is within less than 5 of either end of the d20 scale do you wrap possible results around to the other end (so that a 18-20, and 1-6 would be your successful results)? What good is the mechanic is the combination were 50 numbers on the dial? Or only 12 numbers? It ends up being a HIGHLY specialized, situational mechanic that isn't adaptable. It may be okay for a genuine one-time thing, but even then it STILL ends up being simpler, and therefore much more likely to be conducive to flow of play, to just say, "Your target number is X, roll high." Unless the point of the use of the mechanic actually IS obfuscation.

Not saying simpler is ALWAYS better, but pick a die roll to set a degree of granularity for success/failure, set a target number in that range, roll the die and adjust with bonuses/penalties as applicable is hard to improve on mechanically.