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?
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?