[Orion's Arm] Dice Mechanic questions

[Resonantg]

G'day all,  first time poster, recent reader.

I think this is the right place to post questions on a game system I'm working on so if it's not, please forgive me and tell me where to move it and I will. ;c)

I've been currently working on a system of task resolution that hides an exponential metric behind a 0-99 scale and uses a single exploding 1d10 as it's random chance.  Due to the nature of the game, we needed to compress a huge scale of power into a managable number metric, hence this type of system.  We cannot use humanocentric norming that most game systems enjoy the benefit of using, since many PCs and NPCs may not even be humanoid.  

A recent playtest with a new group has brought up a potentially severe problem regarding what they called a  "lack of chance" against stronger opponents.  I'm far from a mathematician, so I don't really know how to address the issue too well.

The point was made that even in a situation where you have 2 points of difference, you have only a 40% chance to beat your more powerful opponent.  This confuses me on why this is a problem since when you are even in your roll base, you only have a 50% chance of winning due to the nature of a random d10.  

Why this is a possible problem is the scale we are talking about is exponential, where power is effectively doubled every 7-8 points.  For example, a 100 IQ at 25, is a 200 IQ at 33, and 400 IQ by 40.  This leaves me to question if this really is a valid argument, or if by increasing the randomness I get into the "Forrest Gump" element.  By which I mean very unable characters are suddenly able to challenge and triumph, on a fairly regular basis, opponents that are not only double but quintuple times better than them.  This goes against a very basic philosophy of the setting, that I have no say in changing.  Hence why we have an impass.

One of the major suggestions was of course going to a dice pool method, which my Coredev group has tried in the past and discovered doesn't work so hot either.  Plus after reading what some of the resident mathematicians in this group had to say about increased dice rolling decreases the actual variation of results, which I want to keep.  I have considered going to a larger die, but have not liked the numbers it produces as much either.

One of the most explicit ways this problem was stated was that it felt like they were playing "Amber" the diceless system, which of course, in the group's mind, was a big negative since that metric offered no chance to defeat those better than yourself.  I dont' know if this is a valid mechanic, since we do use an exploding d10 for times when you do have a narrow difference between characters, and even at greater variances, the weaker could have an explosion "up" while the stronger can have an explosion "down" (yes we explode both ways) and allow the rare defeat of someone vastly more powerful than yourself on this individual contest.

So, the question is ultimately, is the playtest group being overly sensitive to a dice mechanic or is there a genuine problem that needs to be addressed, and if so, how can it be done without increasing complexity with the system?  I want to make the system fun, but at the same time, it has to be believable and "realistic" as the subject matter allows.

If more detail on the system is required, ask and I shall post what I can here. :c) Or you can click the link below to go to the site.  It's a bit of a mess since it's essentially a workstation, and isn't even to alpha-testing stages.  We're just tearing apart individual sections of the game, and making sure they work.

Thanks for any advice you can give. :c)

[Andrew Cooper]

Reasonantg,

I don't see anything wrong with a dice mechanic that makes it near impossible for the much weaker opponent to defeat the stronger, assuming that falls within your design goals.  Here's where I think you need to look at things...

So, the question is ultimately, is the playtest group being overly sensitive to a dice mechanic or is there a genuine problem that needs to be addressed, and if so, how can it be done without increasing complexity with the system? I want to make the system fun, but at the same time, it has to be believable and "realistic" as the subject matter allows.

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Does the playtest group have the same view of what is fun as I, as the designer, do?"  Not everyone thinks the same types of things are fun.  Within a game group this is true many times.  It's why certain groups are dysfunctional.  Players within the group have different and mutually exclusive definitions of fun.

So, look at your design goals.  Does modeling the more plausible situation where the stronger, faster, smarter guy almost always wins make the game more fun to you?  It does to some people and it doesn't to others.

What about your playtesters?  Do they think that their characters always need a decent chance to overcome the odds in order to be fun and "realism" be damned?  I know players like that.  Good players.  Your game (with your goal) isn't going to be fun for them, if this is the case.  Don't sweat it.  Contrarying to popular belief, no one game can be everything to everybody.

My suggestion is to sit down with your group and have a blunt and serious discussion about what makes gaming fun.  Read Ron's articles in the Articles section of this site.  It'll give you a reference point for comparing their gaming expectations versus your own.  You may find that they aren't being "overly sensitive" but that they are just wanting a different style/feel to the game than you are.

[Selene Tan]

Like Andrew said, you should take some time to think about what your design goals and what you find fun. What do the players do in the game? I skimmed some of the setting material you have up on the website, but didn't find anything that immediately jumped out at me.

On related note, what is the purpose of realism in your game? "To be realistic" is not a good answer to the question because it doesn't actually answer anything. Take a look at your design goals and think about when you would be willing to give up realism in favor of your design goals.

Finally, if players don't like their odds, what, if anything, can they do about it?

[Valamir]

I'm not sure I understand your question, let me see if I can summarize.

You have a mechanic in which ability is rated on a 1-99 scale such that 2 parties with equal ability will have a 50/50 chance against each other.

A party who is 2 points higher than there opponent under this system has a 60% chance of winning, while the weaker party has a 40% chance.

The system is such that every 8 points corresponds to a doubling of ability so that (if I did the math right) 2 points equates to roughly being 12.5% superior to your opponent.

So in order to determine whether being 12.5% superior to your opponent reasonably equates to having a 60% chance of success, you need to first determine what chance of success you ascribe to someone who is double, or 8 points better.

If I am equal to you I have a 50% chance of beating you.  If I am double you and you assign this a 75% chance of beating you than one can say that every %age point I am better than you equates to .25%  So if I am 2 points (12.5%) better than you I should have a 53% chance to beat you.

If you assign a 90% chance to beat someone who is 8 points lower than you then that equates to a .40% chance for every %age point.  If I am 2 points (12.5%) better than you I should then have a 55% chance of beating you.

2 points in a system like this is a pittance.  Since you've created a curve each point early in the curve has less effect than a linear scale while each point later in the curve has more effect than a linear scale.


I think what is most likely happening in your game is that your players are thinking that 2 points is actually a significant difference...because 8 points is double, 2 points must be pretty significant...i.e. they're thinking in linear terms.

In the scale you've created 2 points is a pretty minor advantage.



This becomes an issue because you're trying to capture a wide range of scales.  Its a standard problem in superhero games that try to equate scores to actual physics measurements.  If you have a scale that can compare the strength of the Hulk and the strength of Thor...then differences way down at the low end of the curve are going to be pretty minimal...the difference between me and Mr Olympia will barely register at that scale.

You might take a look at the superheroes game Blood of Heroes.  I found the rules to be horrifyingly crunchy, but IIRC they had some pretty elaborate math behind their logrithmic ability scales.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya MDB,

One possible explanation for why the players didn't care for the system in which their chances of defeating a more powerful opponent dimish as the opponent gets more powerful is the fact that players, as a rule, hate to lose.  Hehe, as funny that might sound at first, that's what I'd tag it on based on your description.  IMHO, as Gaerik said, there is nothing wrong with a system that makes it hard for weak combatants to defeat strong combatants.  Makes sense to me! :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Resonantg]

Wow!  not used to such a prompt response! :c)  Thanks for your input guys!

Gaerik wrote:

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Does the playtest group have the same view of what is fun as I, as the designer, do?" Not everyone thinks the same types of things are fun. Within a game group this is true many times. It's why certain groups are dysfunctional. Players within the group have different and mutually exclusive definitions of fun.

Good point.  I have a suspicion they're enamored with the setting (for more of that you'd have to go to www.orionsarm.com which is probably the better link to put) but the system in the direction we're wanting to go may be to "heavy" for them or the type of fun they're looking for.  I'm not sure yet, and wish to give everyone the chance to opine if they so desire.

Essentially we want a system weighted more towards skill and traits than we do random chance.  Also, the powerscale is huge thanks to the Transhumanist nature of the setting (which even in our current form, we're still talking about partial Transapience here and incredible power levels over "mere human baselines")  So we have to be fair to those who have the equivilant of a 2000 IQ not being out thought by someone with the IQ of a hot summer day on even an occasional basis.  

Of course, we are just talking with volunteer groups that are interested in the setting and helping with game design, so nothing is officially organized  yet.  For that, I hope to have an alpha system sometime before the end of the year.  A ways to go, but the core concepts are in place.

Gaerik wrote:

So, look at your design goals. Does modeling the more plausible situation where the stronger, faster, smarter guy almost always wins make the game more fun to you? It does to some people and it doesn't to others.

For our Coredev group right now, the most fun seems to come from a plausable (read realistic) flow with high detail when needed, but it must be immersive and give way to role playing and be able to allow GMs enough "winging it" privilages to do what they desire.  In my view, rules are like contracts.  They're never there for when things are going right, just when something goes wrong, or gets too complex to follow.  Also, it is our goal to avoid what we call "Special Rule Hell" similar to what some other older games ended up with.  The best example I can think of is Palladium, which I do play on a regular basis, but still think could use to consolidate their rule set into one handy book.  We want to integrate into system out of the gate as much as we can or create rules that will make it easy to include into the current system or already include it, without having to make new functionality.

Gaerik wrote:

What about your playtesters? Do they think that their characters always need a decent chance to overcome the odds in order to be fun and "realism" be damned? I know players like that. Good players. Your game (with your goal) isn't going to be fun for them, if this is the case. Don't sweat it. Contrarying to popular belief, no one game can be everything to everybody.

This may be the crux of the issue.  If they do want a "I want a chance, realism be damned" system, OA/RPG is definately not going to be it.  This is one part due from a ruling of the parent setting called "The Plucky Baseline Meme".  That means that at a certain level, there is no chance for the lower powered characters to defeat the more powerful.  Luckily, due to preliminary work on the setting, there will be almost no situations where this truely exists.  But that being said, even the sub-levels shouldn't be pushovers.  This is what I consider the "Forrest Gump" syndrome, and we are working to leave a little of that in, but not so much that it happens once an hour or more.  You're absolutely right, this game will not be for everyone.  And that is part of the assumption we went in with.  A blunt discussion will probably be in the future, but for now, I want to be open and see if they come up with any ideas that may make the game more palatable to more people.  I'm not being uprooted with the wind, just bending with for now. ;c)

Selene Tan wrote:

Finally, if players don't like their odds, what, if anything, can they do about it?

That's something we're actually talking about.  Currently our task resolution method is called "Practical Limits" which is a modified bottleneck method, rather than additive.  The Trait (STR, DEX, AGL...) is the maximum ability a character has, while the Skill level is the maximum potential a character has.  Where the two meet, is the lower of the two, and the base number you use and add any modifiers and the exploding 1d10 to it.  

Now we combine that with a skill cascade, where you can default through three levels of skills, back to the base trait plus an exploding d10.  The question right now we're discussing is whether or not to use "stacking" or "additive" methods, which would give a bonus to the Practical Limit method or use non-cascade skills as possible bonuses to their roll.  I agree that we need to figure out ways for players to help their roll situation, but we don't want to increase the workload on the GM too much.  As it is, they will have a lot to work with.

Valamir wrote:

You have a mechanic in which ability is rated on a 1-99 scale such that 2 parties with equal ability will have a 50/50 chance against each other.

A party who is 2 points higher than there opponent under this system has a 60% chance of winning, while the weaker party has a 40% chance.

Right, if both of you have say a base of 30, then a d10 roll gives each of you a 50% chance to succeed.  (this assumes the addition of bonuses is included already).  What the playtest group thought, and I don't know if their math is right, that if you have a situation where one has a base of 32, and the other of 30, there is now only a 40% chance of success, and felt this rathere unfair.  This is where I'm questioning if this is a valid criticism or not.  I try to be openminded here, but my conviction right now tells me that this is actually quite fair.

Valamir wrote:

The system is such that every 8 points corresponds to a doubling of ability so that (if I did the math right) 2 points equates to roughly being 12.5% superior to your opponent.

So in order to determine whether being 12.5% superior to your opponent reasonably equates to having a 60% chance of success, you need to first determine what chance of success you ascribe to someone who is double, or 8 points better.

To use the INT scale as it is factored in IQ it would look like so:

INT of 25 = 100 IQ (essentially your average person)
INT of 27 = 120 IQ (Border to Sub Genius Intelligence)
INT of 33 = 210 IQ (Steven Hawking range of Super Genius)

So the question is, in 8 points, you've actuallly more than doubled the intellectual firepower of a person.  While 100 is average, they will be pressed to be more efficent than a 120IQ person, and they will succeed on an occasional interval.  But versus a 210 IQ, the average person out-thinking the super genius should be quite rare.  Of course, like my answer to Selene Tan, we are looking at ways of players using associated knowledge to help bolster their ability some to compete.  But we don't want to overwhelm the system and suddenly having bonuses of +15 or +20.  That would not be fair to those who are of higher power.

Valamir wrote:

If I am equal to you I have a 50% chance of beating you. If I am double you and you assign this a 75% chance of beating you than one can say that every %age point I am better than you equates to .25% So if I am 2 points (12.5%) better than you I should have a 53% chance to beat you.

Actually, every point increases by a value of 1.1 as by an exponential scale.  At least that's how one of the Coredev group explained how he created the scale.

Valamir wrote:

2 points in a system like this is a pittance. Since you've created a curve each point early in the curve has less effect than a linear scale while each point later in the curve has more effect than a linear scale.

I think what is most likely happening in your game is that your players are thinking that 2 points is actually a significant difference...because 8 points is double, 2 points must be pretty significant...i.e. they're thinking in linear terms.

Not sure, but I think you have the curve upside down.  The higher up the scale the greater the point difference.  The value of each point increase doesn't change, only the size changes.  I think that was clear... ;c)  For example.

INT of 40 = 400 IQ
INT of 47 = 760 IQ (I know hard to imagine)
INT of 55 = 1590 IQ  

Mind you these are based on an approximation, my full scale is hiding on me, but I will find it later if it really becomes important for the explanation.  :c)

It could be that they are thinking in linear terms, and that can be a big problem.  Then the effort is to make sure gamers know that they're really on an exponential scale.  I can think of some graphic tricks to make sure this is abundantly clear in the final product, but for now, it's not something I can do economically.  More concerned about getting things nailed down.

Valamir wrote:

This becomes an issue because you're trying to capture a wide range of scales. Its a standard problem in superhero games that try to equate scores to actual physics measurements. If you have a scale that can compare the strength of the Hulk and the strength of Thor...then differences way down at the low end of the curve are going to be pretty minimal...the difference between me and Mr Olympia will barely register at that scale.

Yes!  This is something that we are having to consider.  If it wasn't going to be a Hard SF Space Opera, this system may turn into a good Superhero game.  I will have to see what other systems do about this issue.  Currently I think we have a good idea, but continued playtesting may prove otherwise.  Hope not though.  The goal is to keep the crunchy data out of the players vision, and keep them focused on a simple 0-99+ scale so they don't have to worry about any math beyond add and subtract.

Thanks for the input so far!  It's been a real help and I am happy to see what else is said. :c)

[Valamir]

Ok, so you basically just have a standard compounding scale.  No different than if you wanted to calculate how much money you'd have after x years if you compound a 10% annual return (1.1^10)

I don't know how this scale translates to a die roll, so I can't judge whether 2 points actually works out to a 60% chance of success.

But you didn't answer my question.  There IS NO right answer as to whether 60% is a good or a bad number until you define your success scale.

I mean if I can dead lift twice as much weight as you because my Strength is 8 points higher than yours and we get in a weight lifting contest, what are the odds that you will beat me.  Probably zero

If I can sprint twice as far as you in 10 seconds because my Speed is 8 points higher than you and we compete in the 40 meter, what are the odds that you will beat me.  Probably zero.

So would you say that someone with an 8 point advantage automatically wins those contests...probably...barring a boat load of special situational modifiers.

But what about a 7 point advantage...a 6...a 5...

At what point is success no longer a sure thing but it could go either way?


This is why it feels like Amber.  Because it is.  There is no way I'm ever going to beat an olympic sprinter in a 100 meter...ever.  Not possible.

Randomness is not there to give me a chance to beat the olympic sprinter in a fair race.  Randomness is there to account for all of the undefined possibilities that were never determined in play that may be influencing the situation but aren't being tracked.

MAYBE me + a whole bunch of untracked possibilities working my way could allow me to win the race...possibilities like my opponent is suffering from the flu, his shoes don't fit, he just got word his wife died, and so on.  If I roll REALLY well and he rolls REALLY poorly so that I beat him...than that's what happened.  Some combination of the above things MUST have happened to account for how I managed to win.  I certainly could NEVER have won "all else being equal".

So even though we had no idea that this guy was suffering from the flu, if I manage to beat him...then we know he must have been (or food poisoning or some other explaination to account for how he lost to me).  Mechanically, this is called Fortune in the Middle around here and you can find plenty of articles about it if you do a search.


But here's the thing.  The more of those factors we define in advance and don't allow ourselves to ad hoc into existance using FitM...then the more like Amber the game will be.  Around here we call that Karma resolution...you have a higher score than me, so you will win.

Randomness is there to account for all of the possible outside factors that might be influenceing the outcome that aren't included in the score and aren't already defined as modifiers.



Given what you've told me of your game.  I'd take a look at the following approach:

1) At even scores you have a 50/50 chance.  You and your opponent roll 1d10 and high roll wins.  

2) The side with the higher score rolls 1 extra d10 for each point of advantage and keeps the highest roll.  This means that someone with an 8 point advantage will be rolling 9d10 vs. 1d10   The odds are ENORMOUS that the 8 point advantage guy will win...but there's some SMALL chance that he won't

3) Then, incorporate a cycle of modifiers where each involved party can propose an advantage that their guy has and each advantage gives them a +1 to their score.  "I have a stealth suit, a pair of IR goggles, and a finely tuned blaster...so that's 3 advantages.  Now you only have a 5 point advantage on me so you're only rolling 6 dice instead of 9.


Simple, to the point, can accomodate any scale.  You have a 97 I have a 3.  No problem.  I roll 1d10 you roll 95d10 and keep the highest roll....am I really going to make you roll 95d10, of course not.  The odds of you not rolling at least 1 ten are so miniscule it would be ridiculous to make you roll.  But *I* might go ahead and roll my 1d10...on the chance that I'll get a 10 and maybe a tie means the result is delayed for a turn.

[Resonantg]

Valamir wrote:

Ok, so you basically just have a standard compounding scale. No different than if you wanted to calculate how much money you'd have after x years if you compound a 10% annual return (1.1^10)

I guess so!  I never thought of it that way. :c)  Like I said, I'm not that mathematically inclinded.

Valamir wrote:

But you didn't answer my question. There IS NO right answer as to whether 60% is a good or a bad number until you define your success scale.

I guess I am still misunderstanding the question. :c/  What do you mean by success scale?  I want to make sure I'm clear and not just floundering like I usually do. :c)

Valamir wrote:

I mean if I can dead lift twice as much weight as you because my Strength is 8 points higher than yours and we get in a weight lifting contest, what are the odds that you will beat me. Probably zero.

So would you say that someone with an 8 point advantage automatically wins those contests...probably...barring a boat load of special situational modifiers.

But what about a 7 point advantage...a 6...a 5...

At what point is success no longer a sure thing but it could go either way?  

Good point.  But the d10, assuming that the die roll is ineffectual for the character with an "8" advantage, technically they have a 10 percent chance to succeed on a d10.  A roll of a 9, and exploded will succeed.  

So I guess the best way to put it is there is no guarantee even a 30 point advantage is an automatic success.  The lesser of the two could concievably roll their d10, and get a 9.  They then roll again, and get another 9, and then roll an 8.  That means they would add a 26 to their base stat.  It is then also possible for the greater of the two to roll a 0, meaning they explode downward and say they roll a 4.  They then subtract 9 from their base, and if they roll another 9 they keep rolling.  Once that's done, you could end up with a -26 to their base.  This effectively eradicates their 30 point advantage.  (hopefully that's all clear) ;c)

But without the exploding metric, a 10 point advantage would be insurmountable then.

Valamir wrote:

But here's the thing. The more of those factors we define in advance and don't allow ourselves to ad hoc into existance using FitM...then the more like Amber the game will be. Around here we call that Karma resolution...you have a higher score than me, so you will win.

I'll definitely have to read up on Karma resolution here. :c)  Thanks for the tip.  I like the fact that the metric allows random chance to be a standard factor for those who are relatively close to one another in scale.  But when things are grossly different, really, it's no chance, so you could forgo the roll or allow the player to hope for a miracle (as with the above example).  So that I hope is enough chance to offset the "Amber" feel which I've only heard negative things about from players, though I've only read a small snip of the rules.  Maybe it's not a bad thing in the long run... I guess I'll have to see.

Valamir wrote:

2) The side with the higher score rolls 1 extra d10 for each point of advantage and keeps the highest roll. This means that someone with an 8 point advantage will be rolling 9d10 vs. 1d10 The odds are ENORMOUS that the 8 point advantage guy will win...but there's some SMALL chance that he won't

Oops, my bad.  I must have not explained properly.  The roll is your Practical Limit Base (Skill or Trait, whichever's lower) Plus any bonuses, and a single 1d10 roll.  If the roll is a 9, keep rolling till you stop rolling 9s and add the result to your base.  If you roll a 0, roll again, until you stop rolling 9s, and subtract the result from your base. (The best case here is rolling another zero).

I hope this is clearer. ::blush::  I didn't mean to give the impression this was a dice pool system (except in regards to rolling a pool of dice for damage) ;c)

Thanks again!  This has been just excellent for me to participate in! :c)  :::does the dance of joy::::

[Selene Tan]

The game Code of Unaris uses a diceless, pure Karma resolution method. If the other person's score is higher than yours, that person will win. You'll have to do something that introduces (or eliminates) modifiers to the situation to change the outcome. It works in Code of Unaris because it's easy to introduce modifiers, so "You fail" just means that you need to figure out a way to make the situation tip things in your favor.

Valamir's point #2 which you responded to was not based on a mistaken interpretation of your game, it was a mechanic for you to consider instead of the one you have.

[Resonantg]

Selene Tan wrote:

The game Code of Unaris uses a diceless, pure Karma resolution method. If the other person's score is higher than yours, that person will win. You'll have to do something that introduces (or eliminates) modifiers to the situation to change the outcome. It works in Code of Unaris because it's easy to introduce modifiers, so "You fail" just means that you need to figure out a way to make the situation tip things in your favor.

I actually just posted an idea for helping increase the odds of success by "situationally related skills" giving a bonus. Since Orion's Arm is using a method of "Cascade" skills and situationally related skills.  Of course this is up to the GM's discression.  So if you have a GM that doesn't see eye to eye that 4 other skills you think should benefit your character's chance to drop a piano on the head of a target, you're kinda SOL.  But on the other hand, the GM may say, what about these three skills as well, here's your +7.  So it can allow a great deal of flex for the GM, and creativity (I hope) for the gamers.

As for point two, whoop!  My bad.  I didn't comprehend that at the time.  :c)

But like I said before, this is very beneficial to me.  As for the whole FitM/FitE/FitB stuff, I'm really not sure I get it other than it seems that this states at what point you roll the random element in the equation.  If this is true, I'm currently using an FitE formula.  But this is from a very rough understanding of the concept.

8c)

[Andrew Cooper]

Reasonantg,

No, you're not mistaken.  You probably are using FatE.  Most Task Resolution systems use that.  They talley up all the modifiers after the situation has been fully described and then roll to see if the characters succeed or fail at the task.  Fortune at the End.

[Valamir]

Valamir wrote:

2) The side with the higher score rolls 1 extra d10 for each point of advantage and keeps the highest roll. This means that someone with an 8 point advantage will be rolling 9d10 vs. 1d10 The odds are ENORMOUS that the 8 point advantage guy will win...but there's some SMALL chance that he won't

Oops, my bad.  I must have not explained properly.  The roll is your Practical Limit Base (Skill or Trait, whichever's lower) Plus any bonuses, and a single 1d10 roll.  If the roll is a 9, keep rolling till you stop rolling 9s and add the result to your base.  If you roll a 0, roll again, until you stop rolling 9s, and subtract the result from your base. (The best case here is rolling another zero).

I hope this is clearer. ::blush::  I didn't mean to give the impression this was a dice pool system (except in regards to rolling a pool of dice for damage) ;c)

No, it was I who wasn't clear.  That was not my interpretation of they system you're using, but my suggestion for a system you try.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

So I was thinking about this a bit at work last night. I'm not following all the terminology very well but I think I'm getting the gist. Basically you are wanting a game where traits are more (much?) the deciding factor in success, whether that be solo tests, or competitive tests?

The problem is the players feel like they are being boxed in by the numbers and can't have the effect's they would like? I hope I've gleaned that much correctly.

Now I'm assuming that your game is traditional in that it has a game master and several players, rather than a costorytelling system. So I was thinking... could it be that your system doubles too quickly? It sounds like the players are feeling they have no chance against NPC antagonists. So I was imaging myself as a GM in your game and thought that the problem might be that, for a made up example, at +5 an NPC isn't strong enough but if I go to +7 they are way too strong. It might be that the problem is there just isn't enough range for the gamemaster to get a handle on what power levels to use?

It might also be that the gamemaster hasn't really gotten a handle on the low randomness in your game, and maybe needs to learn to trim the antagonists down a bit. For instance in D+D four first level players might be able to be successful with good teamwork and strategy against an antagonist of 4th level. Effectively four times their individual power, whereas in your game if the characters are at a 25 and the antagonist was 41 (4x their individual power) they would have to have their die explode at least once with a 8 or higher on the second roll just to have a chance. This is assuming I've understood how your system works which may not be the case. Is there a method for teams to contribute to each other's success? Is the rolling of one d10 final, i.e. My character attacks NPC1 with a knife, we each roll our dice add the result and if I win NPC1 is killed or hospitalized?

Have you considered perhaps a "pushing" method? Several non-indie games have a pushing mechanism for strength. White Wolf's storyteller games do, something about willpower plus strength and then you do a dance? Never could figure it out. Champions lets you add, I believe up to ten points to a power, but it costs you one point of endurance for each point you push your stat, which means you aren't likely to do it unless neccessary. In case you don't understand why, in Champions you want your endurance to be towards it's maximum just like your hit points, without endurance you can't use powers, or even punch

[Resonantg]

G'day c, thanks for sounding off. ;c)

I've just started playtesting, and let me tell you stuff shakes out faster than you can say duck and cover! LOL

c wrote:

The problem is the players feel like they are being boxed in by the numbers and can't have the effect's they would like? I hope I've gleaned that much correctly.

Right, one playtest group has a problem with only a single exploding d10.  My other playtest group didn't mind it one bit, until the damage to traits caused huge differences in ability.  But that turns out to be a problem with damage being caused too rapidly, not the dice.

c wrote:

Now I'm assuming that your game is traditional in that it has a game master and several players, rather than a costorytelling system.

Yep.  We're avoiding the co-storytelling style.  OA's setting is completely incompatable for that type of play.

c wrote:

So I was thinking... could it be that your system doubles too quickly? It sounds like the players are feeling they have no chance against NPC antagonists. So I was imaging myself as a GM in your game and thought that the problem might be that, for a made up example, at +5 an NPC isn't strong enough but if I go to +7 they are way too strong. It might be that the problem is there just isn't enough range for the gamemaster to get a handle on what power levels to use?

This has been theorized too, so you're right in line with the coredev and other interested gamers commenting. :c)  The point totals double approximately every 7.5 points.  100, 200, 400, 800... My point of view is that if you allow those weaker to easily defeat those significantly stronger, you are not being fair to the more powerful.  While they are right to contend that it is very hard to defeat the stronger, and they feel they lack a chance to do so, realistically, they should have big problems in defeating the more powerful.  The problem is where to balance this as to make it fun and realistic.

Last night's playtest showed that one group found this a problem related to other issues with the game, rather than the dice mechanic, so you may be right that it's a GM issue in handling what is too powerful of levels.  One of the coredev group suggested that it be controlled in character creation, making it much harder to increase in level past a certain point.  We've thought of using an "additive" scale.  I can't remember the mathmatical term, where to go to up one level, it costs the same as the level so a level 30 would cost 30 points, and a level 31, would cost a 31.  So this may be a route we have to take.

Lastly, we've added three aspects to the rules to help balance out weaker versus stronger opponents.  Feints, Pumping/Shaving and Multiple Attacker bonuses.  Feints allow you to psyche out your target, and decrease their ability to act and give you a bonus to attack successfully if you go again right away.  Pumping/Shaving is the attempt to increase the speed of your action, decreasing or increasing your accuracy at the cost of more actions per second.  And lastly, the more attackers coming at you, a cumulative, exponential penalty is given to the defender with a max based on how many opponents can attack simultaneously.  It's a size issue for that.

c wrote:

It might also be that the gamemaster hasn't really gotten a handle on the low randomness in your game, and maybe needs to learn to trim the antagonists down a bit.

I think that may have some to do with it.  But there are some other serious problems occuring that I'd have to start a set of new threads to go into it in depth. :c)

Once again, thanks for your interest all!  This kinda stuff is helping.

8c)