Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Stalker0's Alternate Core Skill Challenge System: FINAL VERSION 1.8!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4297080" data-attributes="member: 5889"><p>Hehe, most of what I've done is actually not that complicated. I haven't had a huge study of probability, so a lot of what I've done a more educated person probably could have done in half the time. Mainly what I've done is basic probability and combination theory. But I've been merciless at it, I've run hundreds of scenarios, tried and retried different equations again and again.</p><p></p><p>Some people would write computer software to model the design, and I did that towards the end to verify my calculations and to more accurately represent certain sections that I was averaging to make the math easier. However, I find in general working directly with the math gives more a more intuitive understanding of what's going on. With a program, I can quickly see what changes do what...but the why I usually got by messing with the equations.</p><p></p><p>Also, a good knowledge of excel works wonders.</p><p></p><p>Here's an example of my thought process to help you understand better:</p><p></p><p>For a while, the biggest problem with my system was that as the complexity increased, the win rate started to tank. That's a natural response to this kind of probability work, and its not something you can just reverse.</p><p></p><p>So what I needed was a mechanic that gave a bigger bonus to a higher complexity challenge. Of course, the simplest way to do this is simply to say: "If your complexity is 3 or higher, subtract 1 from the DC or something". Things like that are actually the best way mathematically to fix the problem. Thing is, you never want the rules to get too complicated. In general, you want things as consistent as possible.</p><p></p><p>So I started working on mechanics that affected all complexities, but that would affect higher complexities "more". I tried a whole lot of things, some worked but were too complicated to run, others simple but didn't help the math.</p><p></p><p>Eventually I hit the idea of the bold recovery mechanic. Bold Recovery is a way for players to help themselves if they are doing badly. Which means the more the fail, the more they "win" as far as that mechanic comes in. So the higher the initial rate of failure, the more potent bold recovery becomes, and therefore, it tends to help higher complexities more than lower ones. Voila! That was a critical mechanic that allowed me to tighten up the differences between a 1st and a 3rd level complexity and provide a way for players to have a more active role in the system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 4297080, member: 5889"] Hehe, most of what I've done is actually not that complicated. I haven't had a huge study of probability, so a lot of what I've done a more educated person probably could have done in half the time. Mainly what I've done is basic probability and combination theory. But I've been merciless at it, I've run hundreds of scenarios, tried and retried different equations again and again. Some people would write computer software to model the design, and I did that towards the end to verify my calculations and to more accurately represent certain sections that I was averaging to make the math easier. However, I find in general working directly with the math gives more a more intuitive understanding of what's going on. With a program, I can quickly see what changes do what...but the why I usually got by messing with the equations. Also, a good knowledge of excel works wonders. Here's an example of my thought process to help you understand better: For a while, the biggest problem with my system was that as the complexity increased, the win rate started to tank. That's a natural response to this kind of probability work, and its not something you can just reverse. So what I needed was a mechanic that gave a bigger bonus to a higher complexity challenge. Of course, the simplest way to do this is simply to say: "If your complexity is 3 or higher, subtract 1 from the DC or something". Things like that are actually the best way mathematically to fix the problem. Thing is, you never want the rules to get too complicated. In general, you want things as consistent as possible. So I started working on mechanics that affected all complexities, but that would affect higher complexities "more". I tried a whole lot of things, some worked but were too complicated to run, others simple but didn't help the math. Eventually I hit the idea of the bold recovery mechanic. Bold Recovery is a way for players to help themselves if they are doing badly. Which means the more the fail, the more they "win" as far as that mechanic comes in. So the higher the initial rate of failure, the more potent bold recovery becomes, and therefore, it tends to help higher complexities more than lower ones. Voila! That was a critical mechanic that allowed me to tighten up the differences between a 1st and a 3rd level complexity and provide a way for players to have a more active role in the system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Stalker0's Alternate Core Skill Challenge System: FINAL VERSION 1.8!
Top