Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Star Trek Adventures: Now that the full rules are out, what do you think?
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="aramis erak" data-source="post: 7179038" data-attributes="member: 6779310"><p>Oneshot is vehemently pro-2d20. It has a huge major flaw, and he seems totally blind to it, despite having been shown (repeatedly) the math in support and the actual play experience where I've had it become an issue multiple times. Plus, his numbers are bogus - he's not done the math, and it's BLOODY F*ING OBVIOUS to anyone who has taken a stats class and remembered the interaction of 2 dice...</p><p></p><p>I've had sessions where the rolls were bad. Very bad. The complications opening the threat range being story appropriate, resulting in 2-3 more complications generated per roll. I had a session, with 2p, end with 20 threat, the players both with threat ranges of 16-20, and 3 complications each as trait penalties... there was, at that point, not much more to do to them other than kill them outright. I've had multiple sessions end with 10+ threat, and a mission failure, and no shortage of complications imposed.</p><p></p><p>Most rolls I've seen are NOT on 2d20; typical is about 3. Yes, even if it means spending threat, my experience is players are going to roll at least as many d20's as the difficulty most of the time. Also, the adjustment for increasing threat range for extra help is retained... which prevents "Dogpile on the task" but also puts hard tasks more likely to generate massive piles of threat.</p><p></p><p>Also "7.5%" is wrong. It's 9.5% for base 2d20 rolls of 1 complication and 0.25% for 2 complications. </p><p></p><p>Running the numbers...</p><p>[code]</p><p>Base Complication range</p><p> 2d 3d 4d 5d </p><p>0 c 361 = 90.25% 6859 = 85.74% 130321 = 81.45% 2476099 = 77.38%</p><p>1 c 38 = 9.50% 1083 = 13.54% 27436 = 17.15% 651605 = 20.36%</p><p>2 c 1 = 0.25% 57 = 0.71% 2166 = 1.35% 68590 = 2.14%</p><p>3 c 0 = 0.00% 1 = 0.01% 76 = 0.05% 3610 = 0.11%</p><p>4 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 1 = 0.00% 95 = 0.00%</p><p>5 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 1 = 0.00%</p><p></p><p>+1 Complication range</p><p> ____2d___ _____3d_____ _______4d______ _______5d_______ </p><p>0 c 324 = 81% 5832 = 72.9% 104976 = 65.61% 1889568 = 59.05</p><p>1 c 72 = 18% 1944 = 24.3% 46656 = 29.16% 1049760 = 32.81</p><p>2 c 4 = 1% 216 = 2.7% 7776 = 4.86% 233280 = 7.29</p><p>3 c 0 = 0% 8 = 0.1% 576 = 0.36% 25920 = 0.81</p><p>4 c 0 = 0% 0 = 0.00% 16 = 0.01% 1440 = 0.05</p><p>5 c 0 = 0% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 32 = 0.00 </p><p></p><p>+2 Complication range</p><p> ____2d______ _____3d_____ _______4d______ _______5d_______ </p><p>0 c 289 = 72.25% 4913 = 61.41% 83521 = 52.20% 1419857 = 44.37%</p><p>1 c 102 = 25.50% 2601 = 32.51% 58956 = 36.85% 1252815 = 39.15%</p><p>2 c 9 = 2.25% 459 = 5.74% 15606 = 9.75% 442170 = 13.82%</p><p>3 c 0 = 0.00% 27 = 0.34% 1836 = 1.15% 78030 = 2.44%</p><p>4 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 81 = 0.05% 6885 = 0.22%</p><p>5 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 243 = 0.01% </p><p></p><p>+3 Complication range</p><p> ____2d______ _____3d______ ______4d______ _______5d_______ </p><p>0 c 256 = 64.00% 4096 = 51.20% 65536 = 40.96% 1048576 = 32.77%</p><p>1 c 128 = 32.00% 3072 = 38.40% 65536 = 40.96% 1310720 = 40.96%</p><p>2 c 16 = 4.00% 768 = 9.60% 24576 = 15.36% 655360 = 20.48%</p><p>3 c 0 = 0.00% 64 = 0.80% 4096 = 2.56% 163840 = 5.12%</p><p>4 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 256 = 0.16% 20480 = 0.64%</p><p>5 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 1024 = 0.03% </p><p>[/code]</p><p>Numbers worked out with a python script, percentages found by spreadsheet.</p><p>[code]</p><p>__author__ = 'wfh'</p><p></p><p>Die = [0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0, 0,1,1,1,1]</p><p>nDie = [0]</p><p>res = [0,0,0,0,0,0]</p><p>t = 0</p><p>print "a"</p><p>for a in Die:</p><p> for b in Die:</p><p> for c in nDie:</p><p> for d in nDie:</p><p> for e in nDie:</p><p> t = a+b+c+d+e</p><p> res[t] += 1</p><p>count = 0</p><p>for x in res:</p><p> print x</p><p>[/code](Yes, a brute force approach. But simple to code, and doesn't require one to understand the multi-dimensional formulae for figuring it out abstractly. The version up is set for 2d at +3 complication range.)</p><p></p><p>I've carefully reread the rules - the changes do not eliminate the issue at all; they don't address it at all. It's a stock issue with 2d20 as a system.</p><p></p><p>It's part of the issue WaterBob has with the 2d20 mechanics as well. It was self-evident to him (and me) from the Conan preview on.</p><p></p><p>Expanding the threat range to +3 gives more than 1/3 of rolls an additional complication.</p><p></p><p>From an "Angry DM" mode, it's a great way to discourage players quickly.</p><p></p><p>It's obvious to me that those who don't see it as an issue are not terribly perceptive - because the way the adding hazards works, it only takes 5 threat to kill off a PC in fairly short order... if you have more than that left, you have OBVIOUSLY not used the threat to it's maximum, and have thus given any success straight over the table... and for the perceptive and mathematically competent, that's clearly "I didn't actually accomplish it." It makes it ring hollow. </p><p></p><p>Might be accurate to the show that way, but it's not good gaming.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 7179038, member: 6779310"] Oneshot is vehemently pro-2d20. It has a huge major flaw, and he seems totally blind to it, despite having been shown (repeatedly) the math in support and the actual play experience where I've had it become an issue multiple times. Plus, his numbers are bogus - he's not done the math, and it's BLOODY F*ING OBVIOUS to anyone who has taken a stats class and remembered the interaction of 2 dice... I've had sessions where the rolls were bad. Very bad. The complications opening the threat range being story appropriate, resulting in 2-3 more complications generated per roll. I had a session, with 2p, end with 20 threat, the players both with threat ranges of 16-20, and 3 complications each as trait penalties... there was, at that point, not much more to do to them other than kill them outright. I've had multiple sessions end with 10+ threat, and a mission failure, and no shortage of complications imposed. Most rolls I've seen are NOT on 2d20; typical is about 3. Yes, even if it means spending threat, my experience is players are going to roll at least as many d20's as the difficulty most of the time. Also, the adjustment for increasing threat range for extra help is retained... which prevents "Dogpile on the task" but also puts hard tasks more likely to generate massive piles of threat. Also "7.5%" is wrong. It's 9.5% for base 2d20 rolls of 1 complication and 0.25% for 2 complications. Running the numbers... [code] Base Complication range 2d 3d 4d 5d 0 c 361 = 90.25% 6859 = 85.74% 130321 = 81.45% 2476099 = 77.38% 1 c 38 = 9.50% 1083 = 13.54% 27436 = 17.15% 651605 = 20.36% 2 c 1 = 0.25% 57 = 0.71% 2166 = 1.35% 68590 = 2.14% 3 c 0 = 0.00% 1 = 0.01% 76 = 0.05% 3610 = 0.11% 4 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 1 = 0.00% 95 = 0.00% 5 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 1 = 0.00% +1 Complication range ____2d___ _____3d_____ _______4d______ _______5d_______ 0 c 324 = 81% 5832 = 72.9% 104976 = 65.61% 1889568 = 59.05 1 c 72 = 18% 1944 = 24.3% 46656 = 29.16% 1049760 = 32.81 2 c 4 = 1% 216 = 2.7% 7776 = 4.86% 233280 = 7.29 3 c 0 = 0% 8 = 0.1% 576 = 0.36% 25920 = 0.81 4 c 0 = 0% 0 = 0.00% 16 = 0.01% 1440 = 0.05 5 c 0 = 0% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 32 = 0.00 +2 Complication range ____2d______ _____3d_____ _______4d______ _______5d_______ 0 c 289 = 72.25% 4913 = 61.41% 83521 = 52.20% 1419857 = 44.37% 1 c 102 = 25.50% 2601 = 32.51% 58956 = 36.85% 1252815 = 39.15% 2 c 9 = 2.25% 459 = 5.74% 15606 = 9.75% 442170 = 13.82% 3 c 0 = 0.00% 27 = 0.34% 1836 = 1.15% 78030 = 2.44% 4 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 81 = 0.05% 6885 = 0.22% 5 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 243 = 0.01% +3 Complication range ____2d______ _____3d______ ______4d______ _______5d_______ 0 c 256 = 64.00% 4096 = 51.20% 65536 = 40.96% 1048576 = 32.77% 1 c 128 = 32.00% 3072 = 38.40% 65536 = 40.96% 1310720 = 40.96% 2 c 16 = 4.00% 768 = 9.60% 24576 = 15.36% 655360 = 20.48% 3 c 0 = 0.00% 64 = 0.80% 4096 = 2.56% 163840 = 5.12% 4 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 256 = 0.16% 20480 = 0.64% 5 c 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 0 = 0.00% 1024 = 0.03% [/code] Numbers worked out with a python script, percentages found by spreadsheet. [code] __author__ = 'wfh' Die = [0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0, 0,1,1,1,1] nDie = [0] res = [0,0,0,0,0,0] t = 0 print "a" for a in Die: for b in Die: for c in nDie: for d in nDie: for e in nDie: t = a+b+c+d+e res[t] += 1 count = 0 for x in res: print x [/code](Yes, a brute force approach. But simple to code, and doesn't require one to understand the multi-dimensional formulae for figuring it out abstractly. The version up is set for 2d at +3 complication range.) I've carefully reread the rules - the changes do not eliminate the issue at all; they don't address it at all. It's a stock issue with 2d20 as a system. It's part of the issue WaterBob has with the 2d20 mechanics as well. It was self-evident to him (and me) from the Conan preview on. Expanding the threat range to +3 gives more than 1/3 of rolls an additional complication. From an "Angry DM" mode, it's a great way to discourage players quickly. It's obvious to me that those who don't see it as an issue are not terribly perceptive - because the way the adding hazards works, it only takes 5 threat to kill off a PC in fairly short order... if you have more than that left, you have OBVIOUSLY not used the threat to it's maximum, and have thus given any success straight over the table... and for the perceptive and mathematically competent, that's clearly "I didn't actually accomplish it." It makes it ring hollow. Might be accurate to the show that way, but it's not good gaming. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Star Trek Adventures: Now that the full rules are out, what do you think?
Top