Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Uruush" data-source="post: 1401045" data-attributes="member: 42140">No.&nbsp;You misunderstood me.&nbsp; I probably did not state it very clearly.&nbsp;I'm not clear on your &quot;d216&quot; or your d10 rolling &quot;11s&quot;, but I think I know what you are trying to say, and you are arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make.&nbsp;I wasn't describing a die roll mechanic in my d20 ranger example where you predetermine that a roll of 1,2, or 3 (and therefore 85%) equals automatic failure.&nbsp; Leave whatever &quot;auto-success&quot; number you choose, be it &quot;20&quot; (5%) for d20 or &quot;16,17, and 18&quot; (4.6%) for 3d6 , or &quot;18,19,20&quot; (6%) for 2d10 aside for a moment.&nbsp; I am perfectly happy for those to be relatively equivalent %s regardless of mechanic.&nbsp;You don't &quot;assign&quot; likelyhoods of success in a role-playing game in a static state (or shouldn't).&nbsp; Success is relative to character skills and situational modifiers, not just task difficulty.&nbsp;I just like the feel of a skill determination system that recognizes a greater measure of repeatability.&nbsp; You roll 9s, 10s, 11s, and 12s more often with 3d6 or 2d10 than with 1d20.&nbsp; It allows the skill ranks to play more of a determination than the roll.As I mentioned, I don't have a problem with d20 as it is; I understand probability and the impacts of the different mechanics.&nbsp; I just want to try something different and see how it goes.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Uruush, post: 1401045, member: 42140"] No. You misunderstood me. I probably did not state it very clearly. I'm not clear on your "d216" or your d10 rolling "11s", but I think I know what you are trying to say, and you are arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make. I wasn't describing a die roll mechanic in my d20 ranger example where you predetermine that a roll of 1,2, or 3 (and therefore 85%) equals automatic failure. Leave whatever "auto-success" number you choose, be it "20" (5%) for d20 or "16,17, and 18" (4.6%) for 3d6 , or "18,19,20" (6%) for 2d10 aside for a moment. I am perfectly happy for those to be relatively equivalent %s regardless of mechanic. You don't "assign" likelyhoods of success in a role-playing game in a static state (or shouldn't). Success is relative to character skills and situational modifiers, not just task difficulty. I just like the feel of a skill determination system that recognizes a greater measure of repeatability. You roll 9s, 10s, 11s, and 12s more often with 3d6 or 2d10 than with 1d20. It allows the skill ranks to play more of a determination than the roll. As I mentioned, I don't have a problem with d20 as it is; I understand probability and the impacts of the different mechanics. I just want to try something different and see how it goes. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification