MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Using 2d6 for skills works infinitely better than 1d20, as well.
Why? Genuinely curious.
Using 2d6 for skills works infinitely better than 1d20, as well.
We did the introduction mission The Ganymede Insurance Job and the first mission of the Abzu's Bounty campaign book. So far 4 sessions going on 5 in two weeks. Fingers crossed it continues.I'm currently hoping to run my longest running sci-fi campaign using The Expanse RPG. So far we played 2 sessions. The complete campaign, of 6 adventures, should last 12 to 18 sessions.
The results are far less random, particularly relative to the size of the modifiers (which are obviously much smaller with 2d6, but still relatively more significant), so investment seems more rewarding, and "just chancing it" is less likely to succeed. In D&D, even if you are really going hard on a skill, i.e. you have Proficiency, and a large stat bonus (which is all you can possibly have without Feats, being a Rogue, or a handful of specific subclasses), because you're rolling a d20, the results are extremely random. You'll routinely and constantly fail checks that aren't particularly hard, or roll so high your investment was immaterial, and it's very easy to see streaks of failure or success. There's no curve (technically it's not a "curve" with 2d6 but let's not get into semantics!). With 2d6, there are a lot more results that are going to result in numbers in the middle, so results are more predictable and situations where someone fails four or even six rolls in a row despite having invested in a skill become vanishingly rare, where they're routine in 5E. It also means that totally unskilled characters are a lot less likely to succeed at stuff just randomly. The situation you see constantly in D&D, if the DM allows it (and sometimes you can't stop it), is that the specialist with heavy investment fails, possibly repeatedly, and some chancer with no modifier just rolls a 19 or whatever. This isn't rare or unlikely - it's routine.Why? Genuinely curious.
Technically, no dice are generating true curves, since the results are always quantized into integer-like states, but that's a tiny quibble.There's no curve (technically it's not a "curve" with 2d6 but let's not get into semantics!). With 2d6, there are a lot more results that are going to result in numbers in the middle, so results are more predictable and situations where someone fails four or even six rolls in a row despite having invested in a skill become vanishingly rare, where they're routine in 5E.
Ok?The actual dice only matter when modifiers are used.
Not in many modern games. Most things PBTA have no modifier other than the relevant ability score.Ok?
But modifiers are being used on the vast majority of rolls in the game.
+0 F=0-40 W=41-83 S=84-00
+1 F=0-27 W=28-72 S=72-00
+2 F=0-16 W=17-57 S=58-00
+3 F=0-8 W=9-41 S=42-00
+4 F= 0-3 W=3-37 S=38-00
I think it's quite elegant how closely the FitD probabilities track the PbtA probabilities (I mean, not exactly, but pretty well given the move from 2d6 to a multi-d6 pool).Distribution curves matter. Getting averages right is one thing. Consistency is another matter entirely.