PDA

View Full Version : My experiences using 3d6 instead of 1d20



DaTedinator
2010-07-07, 09:49 PM
So I've been running a campaign recently and decided to try out using the 3d6 instead of 1d20 rule detailed here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm). The primary reason was a situation in a previous game where I *should've* had the situation well in hand, but wildly fluctuating luck led to me doing everything from bluffing absolutely everyone in the entire world, to not even fooling a five-year-old child.

Now, I should note that I'm fine with that in general, but this was a very social game, with lots of skill checks, made frequently, where it took dozens of successes to, well, succeed, but even one failure could blow things. So naturally it got frustrating to some degree. Not an unreasonable one, but enough that I decided to give bell curve rolls a shot.

It's also worth noting that the campaign I'm running is also a very social, realistic(ish) game, usually with no more than one combat per session, and two times out of three it's nonlethal. As I'll later explain, I would not recommend this to a more traditionally violent game.


To put things simply, it worked out pretty well. Far from making things more regular and less random, it actually made things a lot more random. See, my group, while not hardcore optimizers, are well aware of relative power of classes, how to buff their skills, etc. etc., and can usually get it so that they don't need a high roll to succeed on their maxed checks; however, sucky rolls can still ruin their day. The answer? Taking 10. All the time. Making even situations like the Tomb of Horrors almost trivial, because any check they can make, they will, and any check they can't, they won't. Just boom. No rolls necessary.

And while I'm okay with arbitrarily keeping them from taking 10 (whether out of character, or by constantly putting them in stressful situations), I can't just do that all the time, every time.

However, with 3d6, they're much, much less afraid to roll the dice, and the risk of rolling low is balanced by the likelihood of rolling average, and possibility of rolling high. So they roll. And random stuff happens! Sometimes they happen to roll pretty low, and they fail checks they could've made; sometimes they roll higher, and make checks they could've failed. Just like rolling is supposed to do! Taking 10 still occurs on occasion, but it's much, much less common, and I'm okay with that; it's more of a time-saver now than a chance-of-failure-saver.


A side effect of things is that smaller bonuses are a lot better now. Even those +2/+2 skill feats are more than useless now, because if you're even a little better than your opponent, you're significantly more likely to succeed. And because in general, players are going to be better than average people, that means the players are going to be less challenged by hordes, and more challenged by single, strong enemies. The bell curve system does note that already, though, and suggests reducing CRs.


The main downside, though, is definitely the lack of high rolls. There are occasions where I do see a bit of disappointment on my players' faces when the first two dice they see are a five and a six, and then the second is a one. This is somewhat balanced by the massive relief of occasionally rolling two ones and then seeing the six, but dice can be much less thrilling. Even the rare 16 just doesn't seem as high when you're used to the three highest rolls being 18, 19, and 20.

However, rolling 17s is an event occasioned by much joy, and there's been applause for pretty much every 18. So that is nice.


In general, as I noted above, while I definitely recommend it for less combat-oriented games, in a combat focused game, it's not really the best option. Thinking about it, it's actually probably more about whether you're dealing with NPCs or monsters; while monsters tend to have one thing they're good at, NPCs are more general. While a group of fast zombies with high ACs can be vicious in a d20 game, if the players need to roll 15s to hit in a 3d6 game? They'll get slaughtered. Combat is just more fun when it's more hectic, whereas skill checks are the opposite.

Actually, this makes me think that a game that used d20s for combat and 3d6 for skills could work well. Something to consider.

Not entirely sure why I posted this. Just sharing my experiences. Anyone else try bell curves? Maybe 2d10 instead of 1d20?

Umael
2010-07-07, 10:05 PM
I put up with d20... but I think the even 5% increase to be ridiculous. Although it is less likely to get an 18 with 3d6 than it is to get 20 on 1d20, people still crow about how great their luck is by getting a "20" for a critical, then turn around and stat build with 36 points for even more bizarre numbers.

Personally, I find that systems like L5R's role-and-keep, GURPS and Champions 3d6, and pretty much any system that relies on multiple dice for incremental values is better for keeping a system of control and even respect for the skills in the game.

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-08, 02:08 AM
Actually, this makes me think that a game that used d20s for combat and 3d6 for skills could work well. Something to consider.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Combat is inherantly chaotic and unpredictable- when you've got a bunch of people trying to kill each other, ANYTHING can happen and who has the upper hand can change in as plit second.

Meanwhile, things like picking a lock or trying to remember something specific (Knowledge check) is not something you often do when you have someone trying to chop you up with a sword (although I'm sure both have happened in countless D&D games.)

So it comes down to whether you're being threatened or not. If yes, use a d20. If not, use 3d6.

I hadn't really thought about this before, but I think I'll be adopting it for my games.

Math_Mage
2010-07-08, 02:41 AM
I like the idea of 2d10. It seems to sweet-spot between "Argh, my +2 bonus means nothing!" and "Argh, I need to roll a 15 to hit, I'll never do it!" If we divide up the types of results into Really Bad (2-6), Meh (7-11), Good (11-15), and Awesome (16-20), 2d10 comes out about 10/40/40/10 (disregarding that I used 11 twice), which seems appropriate. But I've never DM'd or played one of these alternate roll systems, so I can't speak from experience.

EDIT: For comparison, a +2 bonus on an opposed check under 2d10 gives:
57.84% chance of winning
37.05% chance of losing
5.10% chance of tying

The same bonus in 1d20 gives:
56.75% chance of winning
38.25% chance of losing
5% chance of tying

So, the various skill feats still don't do much for opposed checks under a 2d10 system. But it's different for a vs. DC check. Needing a 12 or higher to succeed is a 45% chance of success, while needing a 10 or higher is a 64% chance. That's significant compared to a 1d20's flat 10% improvement. So a character with a +8 modifier in Sleight of Hand would see a significant benefit from this bonus for actually picking pockets, but not so much for avoiding getting caught at it.

pasko77
2010-07-08, 02:52 AM
Not entirely sure why I posted this. Just sharing my experiences. Anyone else try bell curves? Maybe 2d10 instead of 1d20?

Yes, I currently use 2d10, the result being very satisfying. I've had the same problems with the excessive randomness of skill tests. On the other hand, players will be less forward in trying difficult tests. For instance, the rogue won't try to disarm the trap, if they could only succeed on a 15 and risk to turn on the alarms on a low roll.

Math_Mage
2010-07-08, 03:41 AM
Yes, I currently use 2d10, the result being very satisfying. I've had the same problems with the excessive randomness of skill tests. On the other hand, players will be less forward in trying difficult tests. For instance, the rogue won't try to disarm the trap, if they could only succeed on a 15 and risk to turn on the alarms on a low roll.

All to the better. Taking a chance on disarming a difficult trap should be a careful risk-reward judgment.

Psyx
2010-07-08, 04:29 AM
"Actually, this makes me think that a game that used d20s for combat and 3d6 for skills could work well. Something to consider."


Use 3d6/2d10 for skill checks and the d20 for combat. Combat is random and deserves to stay that way.

I'd also consider changing stat checks so that characters use TWICE their bonus, so as for the checks to reflect actual ability, rather than dumb luck. Too often a mage can kick down a door when the meat shields have all failed, just because they got an above average result.

pasko77
2010-07-08, 04:35 AM
All to the better. Taking a chance on disarming a difficult trap should be a careful risk-reward judgment.

I agree. I just noticed that my players stopped taking wild guesses. Not that it's bad :smallbiggrin:

lsfreak
2010-07-08, 04:41 AM
I like the idea of 2d10. It seems to sweet-spot between "Argh, my +2 bonus means nothing!" and "Argh, I need to roll a 15 to hit, I'll never do it!"

I haven't played a system like this, but ideally what I'd do is make situations where the PC's have to think more. They get a +2 from flanking. A +2 from Aid Another (which I would consider making a replacement for an attack, rather a standard action, under such a system). A +1 for luring someone into higher ground. Possibly easing up on the ridiculous requirements for using grapple/disarm/trip/whatever without feats. It means that some monsters will have high enough armor that PC's might hardly ever roll a hit on a monster if they're not playing smart, but the encounter becomes easy once they smarten up.

Tyrmatt
2010-07-08, 06:30 AM
I suppose technically speaking, rolling a d20 is a 1 in 20 chance of a natural 20 success, whereas in a manner similar to getting certain cards in poker, a 3d6 natural 3 or 18 (depending on your system) actually has odds of 0.5% of occurring from a purely abstract statistics point of view. From a real world perspective, it's still a 16.667% chance of each six appearing.

I'm a GURPS DM so I use 3d6 by default anyway. I do keep a d20 on hand though for determining horrible things happening to people. :)

2xMachina
2010-07-08, 09:53 AM
How about a more crazy conversion to a statistic game?

Need to roll 16+ to hit? And does 2d6+1 damage?
You get 1/4 of 8 damage =2 auto.

Siosilvar
2010-07-08, 10:46 AM
Once, I took the time to make a graph of the likelihoods of all the different numbers coming up on various dice... using d20, 3d6, 2d10, 5d4-4, and others... I think my favorite was 1d12+1d8, but that's a ridiculous rolling method (2 kinds of dice? Blasphemy!).

Psyx
2010-07-08, 10:49 AM
"but that's a ridiculous rolling method"

Anyone remember Dangerous Journeys?

14d7+2d8, anyone?

Myou
2010-07-08, 05:04 PM
One of my players really hated d20s, since he doesn't like heavily luck-based games, so we agred to switch to 3d6.

I have to take a little more care designing monsters, but it hasn't ever been a problem, and it's nice to have that realistic distribution - it's really annoying how wildly results vary with a d20, making actual skill almost meaningless in some battles.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-08, 06:37 PM
I use 2d10 as my preferred default, although one of my players insists on a d20 for everything (he's CN, both in real life & as a PC, so it works). I think that I'd like to try 2d10 for normal situations, but then switch to 1d20 for all threatened situations (combat, timed missions, etc.) as a sort of Panic Mode.

TheEmerged
2010-07-08, 06:50 PM
One interesting dice mechanic I've seen in use was for the Alternity system. Everything was rooted in the d20... but instead of getting flat bonuses or penalties, you got a "step" bonus/penalty.

So instead of a +1 to the skill, you'd add +d4. Instead of +2, you'd add +d6... and so on. The only flaw with it was that the first bonus was larger (+2.5) than most of the bonuses afterwards (+1 on average, until you made the jump for +d12 to +d20). The first step probably should have been a +d2...

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-09, 01:06 AM
The only flaw with it was that the first bonus was larger (+2.5) than most of the bonuses afterwards (+1 on average, until you made the jump for +d12 to +d20)

That's why you stop at 2d8 in between 1d12 and 1d20.