This was brought up by james_west and got me to thinking. How does the physical system-mechanic of a game affect its 'feel'?

I chose percentiles (2d10) for Orbit for this reason: Many console rpgs use this mechanic (Final Fantasy, Lunar, Suikoden). Without reading the rules it's easy to see how able your character is at any number of tasks. Now, I am not a big fan of those games, so my 'instant understanding and awareness' of the system (while only half-paying attention while my wife played Lunar) conveyed to me something *very* important:

1. I immediately identified and recognized the mechanics of it while hardly watching.
2. Everyone already understands a 'percentage chance' of success.
3. Orbit's system will therefor be 'invisible' while the characters and setting will be the star.

Now, on the other hand, the mechanics of a game can also bring the game to life by sharing that spotlight. Poker chips for Deadlands is a great example because it puts a common western prop (chips from a saloon card game) right into your hands. There's a connectivity; the gambler plays with chips while playing cards in the Red Garter Saloon, and I have a few of them right here.

So 'why' did you choose your game's resolution mechanic? And by 'resolution mechanic' I mean both the physical tools plus the system. Did it have anything to do with the feel of the game, or was it mainly a matter of (desired) simplicity or complexity?

Jeff

Um, we chose ours because it was simple (relatively) while still giving myriad possibilities of outcome. For those not familiar with it, Obsidian uses a d6 mechanic loosely based off of the old Star Wars system... or so I've been told.

But, in theory, it gave the desired complexity of outcome with a relatively simple input. In this case, I think your goal and my own are similar.

Dav

Sorcerer was specifically built to create universal uncertainty about the outcome of conflict, most particularly interpersonal (sorcerer & demon) conflict.

That's why it's built on roll vs. roll, with the high value winning (not total, but single value). Every conflict in Sorcerer is resolved this way: physical, social, or magical. The fellow with the low number of dice always has a chance. The fellow with the high number of dice is never sure.

Is that demon going to betray me?
Is that guy going to kick my ass?
Is my loved-one going to believe me?

The game is about uncertainty for everyone, and most particularly forcing the GM to know that he or she must be ready for ANY outcome of ANY conflict. This is not a game about moving from obstacle to obstacle - it's a web of ever-proliferating possibilities.

The dice themselves were chosen for speed. Without target numbers, and without any modifiers except adding or subtracting dice, this highest-value system is faster than any Fortune method I have encountered.

Best,
Ron

Yep, that Sorcerer fortune method is pretty slick. Glad I invented it.

I came up with that years ago, but thought that it might be impractical. Then I incorporated it into my spreadsheet system and it works like a charm. To be exact, my system divides the stat in question by three (retaining fractions) and then generates three random numbers from 0.000 to that figure. Thus you always have the classic bell curve for all roles, and always a possibility of rolling from 0 to the stat in question with the average result being exactly half. So any roll can beat any other, it's just very unlikely in some cases.

I really have gotten behind the all opposed rolls methods of late. It is not any slower, as you point out, and it has all sorts of other advantages, including that you always have a chance to win without using open-ended die rolling systems which are usually clunky and flawed. I find it interesting that most people like to divide up opposed and non-opposed rolls between active and passive opponents/tasks. This seems intuitive, but nobody has given me a reason why the math makes any more sense.

Mike Holmes

Well, this topic is pretty old, but no sense starting a new one.

I got here from reading the excellent Sorcerer archives, where Ron defined a few different dice fortune systems:

1. Flat, separate damage (or, presumably other outcome variable) roll
2. Flat, incorporated damage
3. Bell curve, separate damage
4. Bell curve, incorporated damage

Sorcerer is, of course, of type 4. And, I should add, it has the most kickass dice resolution I think I've ever seen. (Ron also complained in the archive of people not noticing this. Not to worry Ron, once I finish up a few sessions, I'll be posting to RPG.net with suitable lauds for it.)

I'm a FUDGE refugee. FUDGE is nifty for Gamist/Sim types, and it turns out I've got
a powerful Narrativist bent & didn't know it. Much GMing woe could have been avoided, but oh well. The thing is, FUDGE people love, love, love to come up with alternate dicing mechanics, because it has a couple of misfeatures that greatly exacerbate whiff syndrome: first, you use four dice, producing a nice bell curve, but, second, the granularity of results is low. And, making most combat rolls opposed makes things wildly variable over that small set of results (for the record, running from -4 to +4, though basically doubled to -8 to +8 for opposed rolls).

"Highest die wins, no target number but other dice" allows low skills to beat not just higher skills, but arbitrarily higher skills, with increasingly vanishingly tiny chances. But chances nonetheless. While this system lacks an explicit critical system (well, having all of my dice turn up higher than any of yours is called Total Victory, and has a Nifty Factor that is left up to the GM), it's easy to add such if you want and make sure that the skinny ends of its bell curve disappear asymptotically. (There's a special rule too, that says if a single-die opponent or difficulty ties the highest value of a larger number of dice, it's a win for the party with the bigger number of dice--but not a big win. So serious disparities still turn out about right--once you get to five dice or more, unless you're talking d100, your chances of rolling a couple maxes are pretty darned good.)

Honestly, this is one of the Holy Grails of dice mechanics. For me, anyway. The only people it would make unhappy would be, IMHO, the most humorless variety of Simulationists.

OK, all obeisance to the Cult of Ron aside, there is one thing that still gripes at my Gamist heart (the spare that I keep on my desk)--just how much does an x die penalty affect a roll of this kind? Because, a big problem with FUDGE and other bell-curve systems is that +1 means something different to a guy with a skill of, say 11 (if we're trying to get that or less on 3d6) as opposed to 16. To be really math-geeky, looking at your bell-curve, the change in x, the roll modifier, is not proportional to the change in y, the percentage chance of hitting a certain roll. I think those wacky guys at Blacksburg Tactical Research Center actually tried to handle this with an ungainly chart in Warp World, but I'm not sure.

I want charts damnit! I'm sorry. I can't help it. The guys on the FUDGE list crank them out an hour after they're requested. But they're just using an additive system. I'll happily provide folks with code to make these kinds of rolls in Python, but I'm no whiz at making histograms or that sort of thing.

Ron? Was this a leap of faith for you, or are you sitting on yellowed, ancient scrolls from the Han dynasty that nicely plot this out? I know you wanted uncertainty, but I'm a constitutional GM, and you know about the control-freak thing--my players don't care, but I gotta have the variables, man. *Choke* I gotta. I need my stuff! And don't tell me you don't want an Origins award for "Most Kickass Fortune Mechanic for G, N, or S-style Systems."

OK, I'll go take my meds now.

--TQuid

TQuid wrote:
Honestly, this is one of the Holy Grails of dice mechanics. For me, anyway. The only people it would make unhappy would be, IMHO, the most humorless variety of Simulationists.

... there is one thing that still gripes at my Gamist heart (the spare that I keep on my desk)--just how much does an x die penalty affect a roll of this kind? Because, a big problem with FUDGE and other bell-curve systems is that +1 means something different to a guy with a skill of, say 11 (if we're trying to get that or less on 3d6) as opposed to 16. To be really math-geeky, looking at your bell-curve, the change in x, the roll modifier, is not proportional to the change in y, the percentage chance of hitting a certain roll. I think those wacky guys at Blacksburg Tactical Research Center actually tried to handle this with an ungainly chart in Warp World, but I'm not sure.

I want charts damnit! I'm sorry. I can't help it. The guys on the FUDGE list crank them out an hour after they're requested. But they're just using an additive system. I'll happily provide folks with code to make these kinds of rolls in Python, but I'm no whiz at making histograms or that sort of thing.

TQuid wrote:
Ron defined a few different dice fortune systems:


• Flat, separate damage (or, presumably other outcome variable) roll
• Flat, incorporated damage
• Bell curve, separate damage
• Bell curve, incorporated damage

Sorcerer is, of course, of type 4.

TQuid wrote:
Honestly, this is one of the Holy Grails of dice mechanics. For me, anyway.

TQuid wrote:
There is one thing that still gripes at my Gamist heart -- just how much does an x die penalty affect a roll of this kind? Because, a big problem with FUDGE and other bell-curve systems is that +1 means something different to a guy with a skill of, say 11 (if we're trying to get that or less on 3d6) as opposed to 16. To be really math-geeky, looking at your bell-curve, the change in x, the roll modifier, is not proportional to the change in y, the percentage chance of hitting a certain roll.

TQuid wrote:
I want charts damnit!

but I'm no whiz at making histograms or that sort of thing.

Agreed on adding the sigmoid issue, Fang. Good call. My original thoughts on this were along the lines of "flat vs. curve-of-any-sort," but I did write "bell," now didn't I? Thus I stand corrected.

Another point worth reflecting on is that a "separate effect" can have a variety of curve/lines itself ...

Thus:
Flat, bell, sigmoid (all w/incorporated effect)
Flat, bell, sigmoid (all w/separated effect)
... and as a subset of the above line, for each of the three
... Separated effect (flat, bell, sigmoid)

That gives us (let me see) 3 + (3*3) outcomes = 12 types. Oich.

Best,
Ron

One of my favorite dice mechanics that I've seen is from the game Don't Look Back. It works like this:

Add up all the modifiers to your check. This includes skill, any bonuses from attributes, situational modifiers, etc. This gives you a number that's generally going to be in the range of -5 to +5.

Roll a number of d6 equal to the absolute value of the modifier plus 3.

If your total modifier was negative, take the lowest three dice. If the total modifier was positive, take the highest three. (And, of course, if the modifier was zero, take the three you have.) The total of those dice is your result.

There's a little table for interpreting results, but basically 12+ is success, 9- is failure, further up/down gives better/worse results. 10-11 is partial success, partial failure.

The thing I really like about this mechanic is that the possible range of results is fixed -- even if you have a -8 modifier, it's still *possible* for you to get an 18 result. It's just very, very unlikely.

Ron Edwards wrote:
That gives us (let me see) 3 + (3*3) outcomes = 12 types. Oich.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Why would [Simulationists] be disapointed [with a Sorcerer-style dice pool]? I think the system could be applied to hardcore Sim. If you need finer granularity just double or tripple the stats, a voila, instant granularity shift.

Mike Holmes wrote:

TQuid wrote:
... there is one thing that still gripes at my Gamist heart (the spare that I keep on my desk)--just how much does an x die penalty affect a roll of this kind? Because, a big problem with FUDGE and other bell-curve systems is that +1 means something different to a guy with a skill of, say 11 (if we're trying to get that or less on 3d6) as opposed to 16. [Change in x on the bell curve does not equal change in y]

Do I have it right that your problem is that a modifier in these systems modifies by a different amount for people of varying abilities? Assuming that's what you mean, I see this as a feature, not a problem.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Note that dice pool systems in general were a response to the GURPS problem that their curve has a limited range, and not the nice assymptotic tails that, say, Ron's system has. Here's a method that I'm using for a game that I'm developing for those that don't mind addition and subtraction but like as few a dice as possible (each player needs only one):

All opposed rolls. Each opponent rolls skills/stats/modifiers, whatever, plus a D10. Rolls of ten explode and roll again, ad infinitum. High roller scores successes equal to the difference. Simple.

Since there are only two dice, the curve is actually a pyramid (with walls that slope less and less asymptotically), not a bell, but that's not totally unrealistic either, and produces rather adventurous results, IMO.

JSDiamond wrote:
So 'why' did you choose your game's resolution mechanic? And by 'resolution mechanic' I mean both the physical tools plus the system. Did it have anything to do with the feel of the game, or was it mainly a matter of (desired) simplicity or complexity?

I'm sorry if this post is a bit of thread hijack, but it raised some questions for me about a mechanic I've been toying with... and since everyone is focused on mechanic and statistics, let me hit you with it... it seems neat... but I have no idea if it holds up.

characters are rated based on their abilities in campaign specific areas of conflict. In everything else, they are as good as the player wants them to be because they have no effect on the game's central conflict. Martial, Magical, Social, Practical, Mental... etc.

Characters are defined by assigning a pool of points to the thee elements of each arena. If the characters are intended to be powerful, and there are three importiant arenas in the game, they might be granted 13/10/8 to assign.

The easiest to describe is based on phsycial combat. Each arena has three elements which describe it. For martial they are:

Might- how powerful are your moves (acts as a die cap, rated 1-6)

Finess- How skilled are you (how many dice can you throw per bout 1-6)

Techinque- what you know how to do (free techniques are Attack, Defense, and Initiative. there are others, but they are outside the basic mechanic I'm describing).

You roll your finess, round down any dice showing values greater than your Might, then assign them to Techniques. Assign Attacks, reveal attack in reverse initiative order, then assign defenses. Defense values counter attacks highest to lowest (other techniques allow a player to monkey with this after the fact).

Multiple dice can be assigned to each technique.

Some complications:

Gimmies- these are free values assigned to certain techniques. Everyone has a single free gimmie of "1" in each basic technique.

Lumps- specialized characters can add the value of one or more dice (after rounding down to might level) up to no more than twice their Might rating.

Raises- specialy focused characters have their might increased in certain circumstances.

Takes- in some circumstances, Might is reduced for specific techniques. (example is armor. it grants a Gimmie to defense but inflicts a Take to initiative, both getting more significant as the armor gets heavier).


Damage- based on margine of success (attack vs defense) multipled by weapon damage factor. Characters can take as much damage as they have points assigned to the arena.



Now my question... how the hell do I figure out the odds on this?

I was going for a very tactile system. Roll the dice, then move them around on your character sheet lining them up alongside the technique you want to use, stacking them for Lumps, flipping them down when they get capped by Might or a Take.

My only statistic class is long since gone into the murks of time... so so sad...


Thanks all



Benjamin

Benjamin,

First, there were a few ambiguous things in your post. Like the number of sides on the dice (I assume six?). But I think I get it in general.

Due to the takes and might caps, the formula for what fractional chance you have to roll a particular damage when comparing an attack of a certain might vs. a defense of a certain might is very complicated. How important is it?

I like the idea of the system somewhat. I've always thought that it would be interesting to look at effectiveness distribution from the POV of what the game is about. Too often wine tasting costs as much as Starship Piloting, which doesn't balance in terms of protagonism.

Mike

Mike, thanks for the response.

Yup. Good old six siders. I'd just as soon use them for everything. They have so much charm.

Another desingn consideration is actualy making the rolling and aranging kinda fun in and of itself even beyond the utility of an RPG resolution mechanic. Instead of sequestering dice off, I wanted to system which could be enjoyed on several lebels- tactile (rolling the bones), tactical (aranging and using special abilities to wiggle them around), and persona (actualy playing the chaarcter).

In terms of how the rules and setting interface, I figured anything not directly related to the setting's central conflict doesn't matter, so players can make it anything they want.

For a game of waring wizards bent on political and magical hijinks, the arenas would be :

Magic
Politics (or Social, or some such)

Beyond this, wizards can be masters at any mundane skills they want... but Magic and Politics dwarf everything else in importiance. The rest can be covered in a good description and backstory.

For a traditional fantasy setting, this might be better:

Each character selects 4 Arenas to be rated in, distributiung 14/12/10/8

Martial
Magical
Social
Survival
Thievery
Practical

For a Kung Fu game:

Martial
(and perhaps) Social.

For a certain SciFi setting:

Martial
Piloting
Force
Survival
Technology
Social
Practical
Shady

Better late than never...

The mechanic in The Pool needed to be fast, so I went with shooting for a single number, always the same: a one. Rolling more dice would up you odds of getting that result.

I also wanted to get real fast-paced feel. Something that changed rapidly. So I went for the gambling of dice. Its something you can physically feel and know where you stand.

Another game I did at the same time was Sigil (which I took off my website until I can decide where it needs to go). In that one, you created dice by using wooden cubes and drawing your own symbols for succeses and failures on them. The idea there was again to have something you could physically hold. The way it worked was that you'd basically get to add successes to a die as the GM gave them to you (rewards for good rp--ill-defined as it was). Likewise, you'd get failures to add as you botched things or acted stupid.

What I liked most about it was the fact that your die pool would grow, and some of your dice would have more good sides and some more bad ones. You'd get to pick which die to roll in the best of situations, and the GM would pick for you in the worst. I'll be exlporing that system more later.

Another system I created about 5 years ago went like this:

You have 4 dice each with equal sides good and bad (I used cubes painted black and red). One of them had a red dot on one side and a black dot on the opposite. It worked like the Star Wars system in that if you scored the red dot, you rolled that die again. That way, you could have difficulties of more than 4 successes. I ran it many times with great results and I plan to use it again in a more solid game.

I like systems that do these things:

1) don't bog me down with math
2) don't drag out the resolution phase
3) don't play favoritism with combat

My favorite systems I've seen so far are Sorcerer (love it), Star Frontiers (still love it), and D6 (Star Wars). But there are so many great games I've too recently discovered to rave about yet.