PDA

View Full Version : A fundamental mechanical problem I have with d20/D&D/PF



VanIsleKnight
2014-05-15, 03:19 PM
DISCLAIMER: Before I begin I would like to emphasize that I'm bad at math. This post will reflect that, and I encourage my mathematical betters to create better examples. For these examples I'm pretending 1's and 20's in a stat contest isn't an auto-succeed or failure. They're just values of 1 and 20.

I've come to dislike the 'swingy' nature of the game when it comes to d20 rolls for determining success or failure of any given thing. Discounting the GMs who treat every 1 and 20 as an auto-success or fail regardless of what the roll is for, there have been too many instances where the dice have landed a certain way and everyone at the table can't help but scratch their heads and go "huh?" as we try to figure out how the dice rolls translate into the story.





Let's take two humans and have them arm wrestle (as an example, any basic test of Strength/Stat will do) a third human.

-Average Joe: Str 10 (+0)
-Mister Hiro: Str 18 (+4) (human 'maximum' despite without magic or buffs you can achieve a score of 25 at level 20)
-Frankie the Control: Str 10 (+0)

Joe and Frankie are equal in terms of strength, they're also not particularly weak or particularly powerful. They're very average, and have a 50% chance of beating one another in the arm wrestle.

Hiro though is the strongest a normal human being could 'ever' be, but he's only 20% stronger than Frankie is. I'm assuming that means that 70% (7 arm wrestles out of 10) of the time, the strongest human being is going to beat the average human being in an arm wrestle. What?

Interested in pursuing science no matter the cost, I myself am going to arm wrestle Hiro at 15 years of age and as an adult in the next example.




Now I myself am not a particularly strong individual. I would venture my own personal STR stat to be around 9. My younger self easily a 6 or 7.

Adult me has a 25% chance of beating Hiro (again, the strongest human being a normal human could possibly be) in an arm wrestle.

Teenager me has a 20% chance of beating Hiro.

Now you could make up reasons why Hiro lost those matches: he got cocky, he felt like giving a free win, he suddenly lost focus, whatever. We as players and GMs are expected to do that, and we do. And again it doesn't have to be an arm wrestle, it could be any basic contest pitting one stat against another stat. Still, the number of times Hiro loses doesn't add up to me, he should be winning almost 100% of the time, especially against teenagers or even adolescents.

Yes, you can do arm wrestles differently instead of a single die roll, that isn't the point of this post, hence why I pointed out repeatedly you can swap it out for any other opposing stat check. Bet someone is still going to mention running arm wrestles as 3 opposing checks as opposed to one. >: D

icefractal
2014-05-15, 03:29 PM
That's why there aren't a lot of opposed stat checks in D&D. They're very swingy, they ignore level, and as a result they yield a lot of strange results. So ... don't use them. Personally, I would do something like arm wrestling with a smaller and more curved RNG - 3d4, perhaps.

For skills, the difference is generally more significant, although even then, I think that rolling the standard way only works for circumstances that are somewhat chaotic. In a controlled contest, perhaps both sides taking 10 would be appropriate, or rolling off X times and seeing who won more often.

A quick hack, for cases where you don't want to make it a lengthy contest, and want to keep things similar to standard, is for both sides to roll 3d20 and take the middle one. Sort of a middle-ground between rolling and taking 10, it could be appropriate for semi-threatened situations.

shadow_archmagi
2014-05-15, 03:36 PM
Yeaaaaaaaaaaah d20 kinda sucks like that.

VanIsleKnight
2014-05-15, 04:18 PM
It isn't just stat checks, but most d20 rolls in general. I've found the game very swingy in general; it's enjoyable enough to serve as entertainment but I find the system itself deeply flawed and clunky. The fact that it needs 'hacks' at all does not help it's case in that regard.

Skills can be substituted for the examples as well, as well as basic combat.

I understand that there are in-game modifiers as well as circumstance bonuses made up by the GM, but that doesn't elegantly or sometimes even adequately satisfies the problem.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-05-15, 04:21 PM
Yeah, it's a commonly-known problem in d20 games. The best fix I'm aware of is to replace the d20 with 3d6 for all of your rolls. Almost the same range of results, and the average roll is the same.

Airk
2014-05-15, 04:31 PM
That's why there aren't a lot of opposed stat checks in D&D. They're very swingy, they ignore level, and as a result they yield a lot of strange results. So ... don't use them. Personally, I would do something like arm wrestling with a smaller and more curved RNG - 3d4, perhaps.

For skills, the difference is generally more significant, although even then, I think that rolling the standard way only works for circumstances that are somewhat chaotic. In a controlled contest, perhaps both sides taking 10 would be appropriate, or rolling off X times and seeing who won more often.

A quick hack, for cases where you don't want to make it a lengthy contest, and want to keep things similar to standard, is for both sides to roll 3d20 and take the middle one. Sort of a middle-ground between rolling and taking 10, it could be appropriate for semi-threatened situations.

Them's some wacky houserules you have there, and should not be considered for any discussion of how "d20 systems" work.

So yes. d20 games have two big issues.

#1: The d20 is a flat, very large spread of numbers. A 1 is just as likely as a 10 which is just as likely as a 20.
#2: The spread of character bonuses is not very large compared to the spread of random numbers. A "large" difference in ability in most d20 games is like +10. That means when the person with +15 rolls a 5 and the person with +5 rolls a 16, the person with the +5 does better.

These two factors combine to create very swingy results. These sorts of things are counteracted by other game systems in two ways:

#1: Use multiple dice. This creates a bell curve. Simply substituting 3d6 for d20 means that situations in which a person with a +15 losing to a person with +5 become MUCH rarer.
#2: Make the 'ability spread' wider. You see this in a lot of percent based games. If "average" is +0, and "really good" is +90% or more, you'll see the +90% person losing less often.

But basically, if this annoys you, don't complain about it. Go play something else. There's an infinite number of games out there, and basically none of them use d20s for everything except for D&D, it's "d20" derivatives, and Pathfinder, which is basically a d20 derivative.

Even better, in your particular case, you have a perfectly clear argument for why you don't like D&D: You don't like games with swingy results. So find your own game and enjoy it.

VanIsleKnight
2014-05-15, 05:06 PM
But basically, if this annoys you, don't complain about it.

Translation: Never criticize anything ever, and go away you silly king-type!

Currently the best I've found is FATE, we attempted to do GURPS once but that was... yeah. I don't know anybody who plays GURPS and I respect their ability to do so for being able to use something so expansive.

We'll still play Pathfinder since it's still enjoyable enough, however I was unaware of the 3d6 variant rule and will probably give that a shot.

But seriously, never say "Don't complain, go play something else" about any system. Every system that warrants criticism ought to be criticized, else people (specifically game designers) won't think there's anything wrong with it.

TheCountAlucard
2014-05-15, 07:02 PM
Actually if neither randomness nor skill is a factor, a roll generally isn't called for; the guy with the higher Strength (after all modifiers) wins.

You gotta remember, you only call for a roll if there's a reasonable chance of things not going right (and if the results would have any sort of meaningful impact on the game). I don't have the 20th level PCs roll out attacks or initiative if they want to kill an ordinary rat, and I don't have the PCs roll opposed Intelligence checks or whatever if they're just playing checkers in the bar to kill time.

Tengu_temp
2014-05-15, 07:56 PM
This is why I prefer to roll 2d10 instead of 1d20 (I don't play DND, but I do play M&M) and set the standard crit range to 18-20 to compensate. Suddenly it becomes much harder to beat someone with a higher bonus than you, and even a difference of 2-3 points becomes much more visible!

Pex
2014-05-15, 10:17 PM
It's really a matter of taste. It's just something you don't like. However, if you're still going to play D&D and have to deal with the d20 you'll need to either lump it (being sincere, not snarky) or find a solution.

One option it to use an idea 3E's Unearthed Arcana introduced and 4E has as a staple - multiple d20 rolls. For a given task you roll Xd20 and need to get Y successes before Z failures. For opposed rolls it's whoever gets to Y wins first wins. The problem is determining the values for X, Y, and Z. It depends on the task that needs the roll and how easy or hard it is. It also takes up real world time to roll Xd20 and figure out the success or failure. Multiple instances of time for Xd20 rolls adds up over a game session.

Another option is to use the Advantage/Disadvantage system 5E introduced. When you have Advantage in a task roll 2d20 and use the higher roll. Disadvantage is roll 2d20 and use the lower roll. It's possible for one person to have Advantage while at the same time his opponent has Disadvantage. You can make an inquiry in the 5E forums for more information about the system, its pros and cons.

Airk
2014-05-15, 11:05 PM
Translation: Never criticize anything ever, and go away you silly king-type!

You need to get your translator checked, Mister, because what I ACTUALLY said was "There are tons of awesome games that aren't D&D, so if you don't like the d20, F- that game, go play something better!" Only I was trying not to talk down to people who really enjoy d20.


But seriously, never say "Don't complain, go play something else" about any system. Every system that warrants criticism ought to be criticized, else people (specifically game designers) won't think there's anything wrong with it.

Because, you know, I totally haven't already analyzed the crap out of this problem or something, in the same post you are whining about. Nor has anyone else, ever, EVER examined this problem. WTF, sir?

I think "If you don't like it, play something else." is EXCELLENT ADVICE in the RPG community, because SO MANY PEOPLE are all "I am playing D&D, and X, Y and Z are really bothering me, how do I fix this? It's ruining my game!" when the answer is "You don't have to, tons of excellent game designers have already fixed it, and you just need to pick a game that's better designed than the ol' warhorse."

Or, to put it another way, the RPG community needs fewer people playing D&D because it's "what they know" and more people making informed decisions about what games they are playing. So if you have a good reason to not play D&D, you should NOT PLAY IT. To do otherwise is like saying "I really like soccer, but I wish I could use my hands and throw the ball into a basket" and then insisting on continuing to play soccer.

TuggyNE
2014-05-15, 11:15 PM
One way to deal with this is to use 2d10, possibly with Next-ish dis/advantage.

Another way is to have the d20 only govern part of the result, like you do in combat. If you succeed on one check, it just means you've made d4/d6/d8/whatever progress toward the final goal, so usually multiple checks are required to get through the whole thing.

Grinner
2014-05-15, 11:20 PM
Or, to put it another way, the RPG community needs fewer people playing D&D because it's "what they know" and more people making informed decisions about what games they are playing. So if you have a good reason to not play D&D, you should NOT PLAY IT. To do otherwise is like saying "I really like soccer, but I wish I could use my hands and throw the ball into a basket" and then insisting on continuing to play soccer.

While I agree, this position has a number of logistical problems.

First, there's the issue of actually obtaining the books. You can make do with just one, assuming you're not playing online, but it's kinda nice when everyone has their own copy. If you are playing online, well, good luck.

Second, each of these games tend to represent a significant investment of time. I once thought about buying the Game of Thrones RPG, but one look at the table of contents had me reconsidering that notion. People spend a lot of time learning to play these games and becoming competent enough to go play without interruption takes even more time. Here there is a case to be made for rules-light games, but some don't find those quite as satisfying.

This is an expensive pastime, in terms of both time and money. Metaphorically speaking, having a common language is not without benefits. It'd be nice if that common language were a little better designed, but that's the baggage it carries.

Airk
2014-05-16, 08:28 AM
While I agree, this position has a number of logistical problems.

First, there's the issue of actually obtaining the books. You can make do with just one, assuming you're not playing online, but it's kinda nice when everyone has their own copy. If you are playing online, well, good luck.

What is this? 1994? Getting books and PDFs has never been easier.



Second, each of these games tend to represent a significant investment of time. I once thought about buying the Game of Thrones RPG, but one look at the table of contents had me reconsidering that notion. People spend a lot of time learning to play these games and becoming competent enough to go play without interruption takes even more time. Here there is a case to be made for rules-light games, but some don't find those quite as satisfying.

Good games also don't years to learn. You can pick up enough about Dungeon World to be able to play it in 15 minutes. Running it? I dunno, it took me maayyyyybe 6 hours to read the book, and I feel entirely mechanically prepared at this point. I don't think it took me much longer than that to learn The One Ring.

The more games you know, the easier it is to pick up new ones. If all you've ever played is D&D, then it may take longer, but "It's going to take time!" is no more of an excuse in RPGs than it is in the "I'd rather be playing basketball" example I used earlier. Do you want to be doing something you enjoy, or not? I tend to find things that I enjoy worth taking a couple of hours to sort out.

A couple years ago, we were starting up a new game, and we just kinda said "We'll run D&D because we know it". It was okay. Then more recently, we started to say "You know what, D&D isn't good at this." and started exploring other games, and our gaming has been much better for it.

The biggest time investment in games is playing them, not learning them.



This is an expensive pastime, in terms of both time and money. Metaphorically speaking, having a common language is not without benefits. It'd be nice if that common language were a little better designed, but that's the baggage it carries.

No, actually, RPGs are REALLY CHEAP these days. Monetarily at least. Time-wise, they are certainly no more time consuming than any of a number of other hobbies. You could learn and play an entire campaign in a game system in the time a lot of people sunk into Skyrim. If you can spend the time to play D&D, you can spend a couple extra dollars and hours to play something else.

Not sure what your language metaphor was about at all, either.

Grinner
2014-05-16, 08:58 AM
What is this? 1994? Getting books and PDFs has never been easier.



Good games also don't years to learn. You can pick up enough about Dungeon World to be able to play it in 15 minutes. Running it? I dunno, it took me maayyyyybe 6 hours to read the book, and I feel entirely mechanically prepared at this point. I don't think it took me much longer than that to learn The One Ring.

The more games you know, the easier it is to pick up new ones. If all you've ever played is D&D, then it may take longer, but "It's going to take time!" is no more of an excuse in RPGs than it is in the "I'd rather be playing basketball" example I used earlier. Do you want to be doing something you enjoy, or not? I tend to find things that I enjoy worth taking a couple of hours to sort out.

A couple years ago, we were starting up a new game, and we just kinda said "We'll run D&D because we know it". It was okay. Then more recently, we started to say "You know what, D&D isn't good at this." and started exploring other games, and our gaming has been much better for it.

The biggest time investment in games is playing them, not learning them.



No, actually, RPGs are REALLY CHEAP these days. Monetarily at least. Time-wise, they are certainly no more time consuming than any of a number of other hobbies. You could learn and play an entire campaign in a game system in the time a lot of people sunk into Skyrim. If you can spend the time to play D&D, you can spend a couple extra dollars and hours to play something else.

Not sure what your language metaphor was about at all, either.

From your perspective, these things may be true.

Personally, I have trouble justifying $20 for a single book, and I'm certainly not accustomed to paying full retail. I suppose getting PDFs with the PirateBay discount is an option, but that's not one I prefer.

Personally, getting players together on a different system is a chore. Homebrewing rules is also a chore, but less so.

Your assertions may be true for you, but they're certainly not true for me.

Jay R
2014-05-16, 09:01 AM
Don't use an opposed strength roll on anything unless it's random, and the weaker person can reasonably win.

In an arm-wrestling match or a tug-of-war, for STR 10 vs STR 18, I wouldn't even roll.

The problem is not the mechanic you're using to generate the random number, but the fact of generating a random number at all when the situation is not random.

Tarqiup Inua
2014-05-16, 09:38 AM
I can't speak for the system, but you are making few assumptions, here.

Physically strong human (such as harbour worker used to carrying great burden) and good wrestler aren't totally the same. You can defeat strong man with little stamina by one well aimed kick in the groin or by forcing your fingers in his eye socket (equivalent of one unarmed attack).
Good wrestler would have higher constitution and perhaps better dexterity as well. He might also have maxed hit dice for first level (we are speaking of a professional).
He will definitely have a feat for fighting unarmed.

Mind these matches usually have special rules - the task is seldom punching someone to unconsciousness - many sports and many types of ocmpetitions even forbid that.
If you want your match to mirror the reality, go for something different.

For example - if the sport is anything like greco-roman wrestling, you may decide the match is solely based on grappling without dealing damage. The ways to win - holding someone pinned for over 1 round or dragging someone all the way to the edge of the circle and throwing them out, require more than just one grapple check and will favour the stronger opponent.

If you want your match to resemble actual fighting, you are still not out of options. The rules, again, may forbid using moves that can cause serious harm, which could translate into, say, low damage reduction with scaling based on endurance. The advantage goes to the strong hitters, again, because they can overcome it.

I could imagine allowing a bluff check, where - if you succeed, you can hit your opponent using illegal move without the referee noticing, and ignore your foes' damage reduction 3/dirty fighting.

It takes some more work to make it sensible, I guess...

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 09:40 AM
Have to correct the numbers...

At equal bonuses, you're going to have 5% draws and 47.5% victories for both.

At +0 vs. +4 (a 4-point difference), it's 4% draws, 30% for the lower bonus, and 66% for the higher bonus.

At -1 vs. +4, it's 3.75% draws, 26.25% lower, 70% higher.

At -2 vs. +4, it's 3.5% draws, 22.75% lower, 73.75% higher.

You basically forgot the draws, that's all.

For fun, +5 vs. +15 is 2.5% draws, 11.25% lower, 86.25% higher.

The solutions have been mentioned; multiple dice tend towards averages, etc.

For instance, if you use 3d6 instead...
At +0 vs. +4, the odds that the +0 beats the +4 are 14.46%.

At -1 vs. +4, the odds are 9.65% for the weaker.

At -2 vs. +4, the odds are 6.08% for the weaker.

Those odds are lower, but they still look too high, don't they?

For funsies, +5 vs. +15 is 0.99% odds for the lower bonus.

I think Jay R is spot on here, ultimately: the only way you can model this sort of thing well is to not even roll for the average guy against the strongest guy. I really doubt that, over a statistically significant number of tests, we'd see an average guy win at arm-wrestling against a strongest guy even 1% of the time.

It comes down to what you want from the system. D&D 3E is not supposed to model realistic results in arm-wrestling matches with opposed Strength checks; that's not any kind of priority for the system.

Also, Airk is right about choosing better systems for yourself. Excuses are excuses; there's plenty of legally free RPGs, and plenty of RPGs worth money and time. (Also, if you can't spend $20 per book, how the heck can you buy D&D?)


Edit:

one well aimed kick in the groin

fingers in his eye socket (equivalent of one unarmed attack).

punching someone to unconsciousness

Dude, the example was arm wrestling. You either missed the whole point of the OP, or I really feel sorry for anyone who's ever arm-wrestled you.

Tarqiup Inua
2014-05-16, 09:48 AM
Dude, the example was arm wrestling. You either missed the whole point of the OP, or I really feel sorry for anyone who's ever arm-wrestled you.
Or perhaps it is you who missed the whole rest of my post where I happened to be talking exactly about that - rules in fighting competitions and ways to introduce them?

I was merely pointing out that unarmed attack is a very bad representation of wrestling.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-05-16, 09:54 AM
All hail the d20, sower of discord in this thread. :smalltongue:

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 09:58 AM
I was merely pointing out that unarmed attack is a very bad representation of wrestling.

But you were the one who brought up unarmed attacks, the OP's example was opposed Strength checks... and the thread is about the mathematical results that the d20 system produces with opposed checks, not about unarmed combat... so your post was kind of a giant non-sequitur.

Tarqiup Inua
2014-05-16, 10:12 AM
But you were the one who brought up unarmed attacks, the OP's example was opposed Strength checks... and the thread is about the mathematical results that the d20 system produces with opposed checks, not about unarmed combat... so your post was kind of a giant non-sequitur.

Others said multiple d20 checks can resolve the problem, I provided a way to make a wrestling match into several grapple checks (which happen to be opposed checks), and pointed out how to make it work with or without unarmed attacks, so that seems relevant to me.

I agree d20 has its oddities. You'll get no argument from me, there...

1337 b4k4
2014-05-16, 10:12 AM
From your perspective, these things may be true.

Personally, I have trouble justifying $20 for a single book, and I'm certainly not accustomed to paying full retail. I suppose getting PDFs with the PirateBay discount is an option, but that's not one I prefer.

Personally, getting players together on a different system is a chore. Homebrewing rules is also a chore, but less so.

Your assertions may be true for you, but they're certainly not true for me.

I think you're missing the point that these days there are more free rule systems than you can shake a stick at. If you want D&D, there's the entire retro-clone industry, then there's Dungeon World, Basic Fantasy, Eclipse Phase, Stars Without Number, everything here (http://sillyhatbooks.com/about/games/), the last few years around the holidays Classic Traveller has been free on RPGNow.com, then there's the entire free and pay what you want section on RPGNow.com (which includes all the old WEG d6 systems). In this day and age, if you have a computer or an ebook reader that can display PDFs (or access to someone who will print it out for you) you could game for your entire life playing a new system entirely every campaign, without ever paying one cent for a rule book and do it all perfectly legal.

Now, getting other players might be an issue, but if your players are as frustrated as you are with the failings of a given system, then getting them to switch shouldn't be an issue with the free games because it requires no outlays.


Edit
----------------
As to the OP


Now you could make up reasons why Hiro lost those matches: he got cocky, he felt like giving a free win, he suddenly lost focus, whatever. We as players and GMs are expected to do that, and we do. And again it doesn't have to be an arm wrestle, it could be any basic contest pitting one stat against another stat. Still, the number of times Hiro loses doesn't add up to me, he should be winning almost 100% of the time, especially against teenagers or even adolescents.

One thing you could try is to bring in the idea that failure on a contested roll doesn't necessarily mean failure of the immediate action but it means there are consequences for the action. For example, your arm wrestler might still win the match, but maybe got a little carried away and broke their opponent's arm in the process. Turns out their opponent was the son of a petty lord looking to score political points...

Or maybe the local guard shows up at the tavern to bust up the gambling, turns out arm wrestling is considered gabling in this town and now the players are under arrest...

Obviously stuff like this requires a lot of trust in your DM to be fair, and isn't applicable to every situation, but it can certainly help turn the swinginess of the game into a positive instead of a negative.

Mando Knight
2014-05-16, 10:23 AM
From your perspective, these things may be true.

Personally, I have trouble justifying $20 for a single book, and I'm certainly not accustomed to paying full retail. I suppose getting PDFs with the PirateBay discount is an option, but that's not one I prefer.

Personally, getting players together on a different system is a chore. Homebrewing rules is also a chore, but less so.

Your assertions may be true for you, but they're certainly not true for me.

DriveThruRPG (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php) is a legal source of PDFs. A lot of systems have quick-start rules for free (for a try-before-you-buy deal), and WEG's D6 core books are also free. Some stuff is discounted, others... you still have to pay full price.

Airk
2014-05-16, 10:32 AM
From your perspective, these things may be true.

Personally, I have trouble justifying $20 for a single book, and I'm certainly not accustomed to paying full retail. I suppose getting PDFs with the PirateBay discount is an option, but that's not one I prefer.

Uhm, getting PDFs for $10 or less is super easy and perfectly legal, as has been pointed out. If you have problems paying $20 for a book, how the HELL are you playing D&D? :P Since there, your choice are "LOTS of $50 books" or "Ongoing $15 a month subscription".

Or, you know, play a retroclone as Rhynn suggested, but which seems completely outside the scope of your experiences.



Personally, getting players together on a different system is a chore. Homebrewing rules is also a chore, but less so.

Have you tried like, actually explaining the situation? ^_^



Your assertions may be true for you, but they're certainly not true for me.

Actually, as folks have pointed out, many of my assertions are also true for you. This hobby is cheap.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-05-16, 11:23 AM
But basically, if this annoys you, don't complain about it. Go play something else. There's an infinite number of games out there, and basically none of them use d20s for everything except for D&D, it's "d20" derivatives, and Pathfinder, which is basically a d20 derivative.

Even better, in your particular case, you have a perfectly clear argument for why you don't like D&D: You don't like games with swingy results. So find your own game and enjoy it.
It's worth noting that many of those games only came into being because people saw issues with D&D and its kind, and worked to fix them. So I think there is a validity to this topic and discussion coming up every so often. I understand that it's a bit frustrating to see this particular one show up (since it gets newly discovered every month, it seems), but hey--everything was new to everyone sometime.

Waar
2014-05-16, 11:49 AM
I've come to dislike the 'swingy' nature of the game when it comes to d20 rolls for determining success or failure of any given thing.
A d20 isn't exactly swingy on its own, not when it's used in simple situations where both succes and faliure are resonable, trying to armwrestle someone that is almost 4 times as strong as you is not such a situation, I don't think that should be such a check. (swingy, now that is flipping a coin: 50% chance to win, 50% chance to lose :smallwink:)


opposing checks And seeing that an ordinary check wasn't random enough you brougth out the 2d20-21+mod :smalltongue: (and who thought that 2d20-21+mod was ever a good thing to roll in a sysem based on 1d20-10+mod, oh right WoTC :smallsigh:). Opposed check are realy bad in their current form, a better way to represent an opposed check would be for the player to roll 1d20+(PC modifiers) and compare to 10+(NPC/misc modifiers). Now if you are in a situation where you want the modifiers to be more influential than the random factor, just double the modifiers: roll 1d20+2*(PC modifiers) and compare to 10+2*(NPC/misc modifiers). :smallsmile:

Airk
2014-05-16, 12:26 PM
It's worth noting that many of those games only came into being because people saw issues with D&D and its kind, and worked to fix them. So I think there is a validity to this topic and discussion coming up every so often. I understand that it's a bit frustrating to see this particular one show up (since it gets newly discovered every month, it seems), but hey--everything was new to everyone sometime.

I'm actually a little perplexed. There seems to be some misconception that I'm annoyed about the existence of this thread. I'm not. I gave an analysis of just -why- this sort of thing (d20 dice mechanics) is annoying, and then I gave a recommendation for what you should do if you find it annoying.

It's only when people started getting all "Don't you tell people to play other games! That's like work!" that I started to get annoyed. :P

Knaight
2014-05-16, 12:31 PM
A d20 isn't exactly swingy on its own, not when it's used in simple situations where both succes and faliure are resonable, trying to armwrestle someone that is almost 4 times as strong as you is not such a situation, I don't think that should be such a check. (swingy, now that is flipping a coin: 50% chance to win, 50% chance to lose :smallwink:)
What about trying to armwrestle someone significantly stronger than you? Say, you can lift about 100 pounds over your head, and they can lift 130, which would be 10 strength vs. 12. It's close enough that it could potentially go either way, but there's an obvious lack of likelyhood.

As is, the stronger person wins 52.5% of the time and the weaker 42.75% of the time, with the rest made up through ties. The d20 is swingy here, with the linearity of it and the size of the modifiers contributing to said swing.

I'd also point out that if success and failure aren't both reasonable, there is a case to be made that the system should model that to some extent. Take FATE - an average person is going to have a 0 in Might. The strongest is going to have an 8. The opposed roll is 4 Fudge dice for both, which have a plus, minus, and blank side. The average person cannot win straight up, but they can tie, the odds of a tie are 1/6561. If they bring in some sort of way that it isn't a straight up contest wins become possible, though they aren't getting anywhere near likely territory.

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 12:56 PM
It's only when people started getting all "Don't you tell people to play other games! That's like work!" that I started to get annoyed. :P

How dare you suggest that some people might enjoy some game they haven't played yet more than the one they don't like now! :smallfurious:

icefractal
2014-05-16, 01:29 PM
Them's some wacky houserules you have there, and should not be considered for any discussion of how "d20 systems" work.Those aren't house-rules, they're potential ways you could resolve an arm-wrestling match. Because, in fact, there is no specified way to resolve an arm wrestling match in D&D. Many people assume it would be done by an opposed stat roll, since such things are possible, but since that would be a lousy way of doing it, why use that mechanic? Here's some possibly applicable mechanics that already exist:

1) Opposed unarmed damage roll, representing force expended.
2) The characters are considered to be grappling. To win the arm wrestling, one needs to achieve a "Pin" result.
3) Skill Challenge (4E is also a d20 game).
4) Divide the "arm position space" into N regions; they start in the middle region. Opposed strength check to shift the position by one increment in either direction. Reaching either end means that person wins.
5) Determine who has the higher Strength score. That person wins.

Those are all about as applicable as opposed strength checks.

icefractal
2014-05-16, 01:36 PM
It isn't just stat checks, but most d20 rolls in general. I've found the game very swingy in general; it's enjoyable enough to serve as entertainment but I find the system itself deeply flawed and clunky. The fact that it needs 'hacks' at all does not help it's case in that regard.

Skills can be substituted for the examples as well, as well as basic combat.Really? I don't find this much of an issue for skill checks. If instead of arm wrestling, this was a tightrope walking challenge, then it would look more like this:

Random Guy: Balance +0
Famous Acrobat: Balance +15 or higher
The procedure (RL, not game mechanics) often used for this kind of contest is to start with a relatively simple challenge, and then increase the difficulty until one participant fails. So we'll start with DC 15.
Round 1 (DC 15): Acrobat takes 10, auto-success. Random Guy has a 30% chance to make it.
Round 2 (DC 20): Acrobat takes 10, auto-success. Random Guy has a 5% chance to make it.
Round 3 (DC 25): Acrobat takes 10, auto-success. Random Guy automatically fails.

Even if we just pick a "talented acrobat", with say a +7 modifier, there's a less than 1% chance that the random guy wins.

Airk
2014-05-16, 01:43 PM
Those aren't house-rules, they're potential ways you could resolve an arm-wrestling match. Because, in fact, there is no specified way to resolve an arm wrestling match in D&D. Many people assume it would be done by an opposed stat roll, since such things are possible, but since that would be a lousy way of doing it, why use that mechanic?[/quote

You are missing the point. There is no rule in D&D for resolving ANYTHING by rolling 3d4 and comparing results. Therefore, you have a house rule.

[quote]
Those are all about as applicable as opposed strength checks.

And most of them are house rules. :)

It's all well and good to say "Here's a better way to approach this problem than the ones that are already present in this game" but the point of the OP, is not that he's lacking good ways to resolve an arm wrestling contest.

nweismuller
2014-05-16, 01:48 PM
Others said multiple d20 checks can resolve the problem, I provided a way to make a wrestling match into several grapple checks (which happen to be opposed checks), and pointed out how to make it work with or without unarmed attacks, so that seems relevant to me.

I agree d20 has its oddities. You'll get no argument from me, there...

Tarquip: 'arm wrestling' is not 'wrestling', or a bout of combat of any sort. 'Arm wrestling' is two people placing one elbow on a table, gripping each others' hands in an upright position, and attempting to force the other person's hand to the table as a test of strength. It's essentially a straight strength versus strength contest, unlike a real wrestling match.

icefractal
2014-05-16, 02:09 PM
It's all well and good to say "Here's a better way to approach this problem than the ones that are already present in this game" but the point of the OP, is not that he's lacking good ways to resolve an arm wrestling contest.That was my point. Resolving arm wrestling with an opposed Strength check is also a house-rule. Why use a bad house rule when you can use a good one instead?

Technically, you don't make a roll at all:
In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

Airk
2014-05-16, 02:17 PM
That was my point. Resolving arm wrestling with an opposed Strength check is also a house-rule. Why use a bad house rule when you can use a good one instead?


But all you've successfully done with all this wasted text is prove that he should have used a different example. You are missing the forest for the tree here.

Guys. The issue here is NOT how D&D "simulates" arm wrestling. -_-

Waar
2014-05-16, 02:21 PM
What about trying to armwrestle someone significantly stronger than you? Say, you can lift about 100 pounds over your head, and they can lift 130, which would be 10 strength vs. 12. It's close enough that it could potentially go either way, but there's an obvious lack of likelyhood.

As is, the stronger person wins 52.5% of the time and the weaker 42.75% of the time, with the rest made up through ties. The d20 is swingy here, with the linearity of it and the size of the modifiers contributing to said swing.



1d20+1, dc 11+0 gives 55% win rate and 45% loss rate for str 12 vs 10 , 1d20+2*1, dc 11+2*0 gives 60 % win rate, 40% loss rate 1d20+3*1, dc 11 give 65/35%, and so on, pick a multiplier of the modifiers that seems resonable based on how much the random factor should affect the outcome. Now to modell arm wrestling (with both sides having equal skill) you could go for say strength score*5 +1d20 vs dc 11+(modifiers)+5*(opponent strength score)or something, is that d20 still as swingy?

While there sometimes is a problem that the d20 can only give 5% chance increments, it is still (roughly) as good as a d100 when it comes to making bonuses matter, it's just that often the size of the bonuses aren't adapted to the randomnes of the task at hand.

Tarqiup Inua
2014-05-16, 02:21 PM
Tarquip: 'arm wrestling' is not 'wrestling', or a bout of combat of any sort. 'Arm wrestling' is two people placing one elbow on a table, gripping each others' hands in an upright position, and attempting to force the other person's hand to the table as a test of strength. It's essentially a straight strength versus strength contest, unlike a real wrestling match.
Ah... my mistake, I have made an assumption, there, about the meaning of the expression.

My apologies, then, my post was off-topic after all. I thank you for the clarification.:smallsmile:

icefractal
2014-05-16, 02:51 PM
But all you've successfully done with all this wasted text is prove that he should have used a different example. You are missing the forest for the tree here.

Guys. The issue here is NOT how D&D "simulates" arm wrestling. -_-But ... it is, sort of. Or rather, it's that ability checks are super-swingy, which I agree with, and why D&D mostly doesn't use them.

There was a claim that skill checks and attacks rolls have the same problem, but I don't actually agree with that. Take a look at the skill-check contest example I posted above - the numbers aren't so close together, and "take 10" means that it's not as swingy in controlled situations.

Airk
2014-05-16, 04:28 PM
But ... it is, sort of. Or rather, it's that ability checks are super-swingy, which I agree with, and why D&D mostly doesn't use them.

There was a claim that skill checks and attacks rolls have the same problem, but I don't actually agree with that. Take a look at the skill-check contest example I posted above - the numbers aren't so close together, and "take 10" means that it's not as swingy in controlled situations.

Skill checks mitigate the problem only slightly, by having larger modifiers relative to the die size, but if they mitigated it enough, I bet the OP would never have happened, because, as you point out, there's not actually a ton of reason to do opposed stat checks, so most likely, the OP originated with frustration born from rules that DO get used.

Also, "take 10" is a cop out, basically saying "well, you don't ALWAYS have to subject yourself to the crappy system, if you're doing something in a situation where a decent game wouldn't even bother making you roll, you can just pretend you rolled a 10." Greeeaat.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-16, 04:44 PM
I've come to dislike the 'swingy' nature of the game when it comes to d20 rolls for determining success or failure of any given thing. Discounting the GMs who treat every 1 and 20 as an auto-success or fail regardless of what the roll is for, there have been too many instances where the dice have landed a certain way and everyone at the table can't help but scratch their heads and go "huh?" as we try to figure out how the dice rolls translate into the story.

Yep, that's a major weakness of the d20 system.

It's simple math. Count how many points of difference it makes to be good at something instead of average (in your first example, that's four points). Then, count how many points of difference the d20 roll can make (obviously, 19 points). Since 19 >> 4, that means that the outcome is mostly dependent on luck of the die, not on character skill.

Some ways to improve this include

Use skill checks, because the spread in skill modifiers is substantially bigger than the one on attributes (except at very low level)
Use different dice, e.g. 2d10 or 3d6, because the bell curve mitigates this effect
Use the full attribute (i.e. "18" instead of "+4"), the way 2E does
Mind you, all of the above don't solve the problem, but they hide it to some extent. Of course, you could always play a different RPG; there are plenty of those. If a game bothers you, find another.

Knaight
2014-05-16, 04:58 PM
It's simple math. Count how many points of difference it makes to be good at something instead of average (in your first example, that's four points). Then, count how many points of difference the d20 roll can make (obviously, 19 points). Since 19 >> 4, that means that the outcome is mostly dependent on luck of the die, not on character skill.

Linearity is a pretty big thing here though - you address that to some extent, but it bears re-emphasis. I'll use Fudge as an example again here, because the 0 centered dice are really helpful - being very good at something instead of average is 3 points. The range is 8 by default, which is less huge than 4. In general, it's twice the size of the dice pool, where each die is a (1d3-2). However, if you had 10 dice, you could say that 20>>3, so the outcome is mostly dependent on the luck of the die. It's curved so severly though, that that isn't the case - in an opposed roll, there's an 83% chance that the person with +3 will either tie or win, and a 78% chance of a win, which is about a 7-2 win loss ratio. Even with 100 dice, there's still a 62% chance of a tie or win and a 59% chance of a flat out win, which is about a 3-2 win loss ratio and 200>>3. A steep curve can make a pretty huge difference.

By constrast, competitive 1d200 rolls, where there 199 points of difference? 51.7%. Or, using win loss ratios about 47-44.

BWR
2014-05-16, 05:01 PM
Actually, d20 does armwrestling quite decently; you take 10. You are in an unstressed situation, putting forth your average effort, can't retry, everything is set up so as to remove as much randomness as possible leaving raw strength. And with a little wiggle you just say that the stronger party wins, no matter what (to account for those who share the same modifier)

Kurald Galain
2014-05-16, 05:15 PM
Actually, d20 does armwrestling quite decently; you take 10.
And then the weaker guy chooses not to take 10. Whoops, suddenly he beats you 30% of the time!

TuggyNE
2014-05-16, 07:10 PM
Also, "take 10" is a cop out, basically saying "well, you don't ALWAYS have to subject yourself to the crappy system, if you're doing something in a situation where a decent game wouldn't even bother making you roll, you can just pretend you rolled a 10." Greeeaat.

It's not actually a cop-out, because the whole point is that taking 10 defines a list of situations in which D&D doesn't even bother making you roll. Therefore, there is no meaningful distinction between that and a decent game. (You can complain about the shape of the probability curve, I guess, but that rapidly gets complicated.)

Contrast with 5e, where there is no particularly good definition of "yeah, you don't have to roll for that", and therefore it forces DMs to make the cop-out on their own.

Grinner
2014-05-16, 07:48 PM
Uhm, getting PDFs for $10 or less is super easy and perfectly legal, as has been pointed out. If you have problems paying $20 for a book, how the HELL are you playing D&D? :P Since there, your choice are "LOTS of $50 books" or "Ongoing $15 a month subscription".

Or, you know, play a retroclone as Rhynn suggested, but which seems completely outside the scope of your experiences.



Have you tried like, actually explaining the situation? ^_^



Actually, as folks have pointed out, many of my assertions are also true for you. This hobby is cheap.

I don't play D&D. I gave up on that one a long time ago. But people took the 3.X SRD and made all these other games from it. Going back to the common language metaphor, if you've seen one d20 variant, you've seen them all. Sure, each one has its nuances, but they tend to be fundamentally similar. This common language (d20 games) isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's easier to leverage something everyone knows than it is to indoctrinate them into a new system for every campaign idea that crosses your mind.

If you can find a system demonstrably better for a certain style of game (i.e. De Profundis for PbP Lovecraftian horror, Dread for horror), that's fine. Otherwise, you really ought to stick to what you know.



And on the topic of PbP, you can't really expect everyone to pony up $20 for a game that might last two weeks. I've found that people frequently don't have all of the books I have, or I don't have all of the books they do. This is doubly problematic for less popular games, such as those you're advocating.

It's kinda frustrating.

Airk
2014-05-16, 08:28 PM
I don't play D&D. I gave up on that one a long time ago. But people took the 3.X SRD and made all these other games from it. Going back to the common language metaphor, if you've seen one d20 variant, you've seen them all. Sure, each one has its nuances, but they tend to be fundamentally similar. This common language (d20 games) isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's easier to leverage something everyone knows than it is to indoctrinate them into a new system for every campaign idea that crosses your mind.

It's not necessarily a GOOD thing either, because it results in a lot of games that are hampered by their system.



If you can find a system demonstrably better for a certain style of game (i.e. De Profundis for PbP Lovecraftian horror, Dread for horror), that's fine. Otherwise, you really ought to stick to what you know.

Believe me when I say there's a better system for pretty much everything unless what you want is "crunch heavy, system mastery-based, combat emphasized fantasy adventuring."



And on the topic of PbP, you can't really expect everyone to pony up $20 for a game that might last two weeks. I've found that people frequently don't have all of the books I have, or I don't have all of the books they do. This is doubly problematic for less popular games, such as those you're advocating.

It's kinda frustrating.

Again. Most games don't require everyone to own the rules - only games with lots of crunch and system mastery require this. I could run a game of Dungeon World on this forum RIGHT NOW and no one except me would have to pay a cent. Actually, I wouldn't have to either, since the SRD is free online. :P

Grinner
2014-05-16, 09:51 PM
Again. Most games don't require everyone to own the rules - only games with lots of crunch and system mastery require this. I could run a game of Dungeon World on this forum RIGHT NOW and no one except me would have to pay a cent. Actually, I wouldn't have to either, since the SRD is free online. :P

I should point out that that reasoning is a bit fallacious. Only some are light enough to be described thoroughly. Frequently, they entail the players describing their own character traits, or they largely obviate the need for character traits.

So what if I want to play Numenera? Vampire? Nobilis? Kult? Unknown Armies?

I can think of many more heavier games than I can lighter games.

BWR
2014-05-17, 12:54 AM
And then the weaker guy chooses not to take 10. Whoops, suddenly he beats you 30% of the time!

By any sensible interpretation of the situation, you're taking 10. If you decide not to take 10 you are suddenly doing stuff that is beyond the accepted rules of armwrestling: starting before the other person, using your legs and weight, distracting them, etc.
But I suppose you can bitch about how a system doesn't work when you intentionally try to mess it up.

Airk
2014-05-19, 09:09 AM
I should point out that that reasoning is a bit fallacious. Only some are light enough to be described thoroughly. Frequently, they entail the players describing their own character traits, or they largely obviate the need for character traits.

So what if I want to play Numenera? Vampire? Nobilis? Kult? Unknown Armies?

Numenera, by all reports, is pretty light. Vampire didn't require all that much info outside of chargen back when I played it, and it can't have gotten that much more complex. Nobilis, by many reports, is unplayable regardless of whether you have the books or not, and I don't know anything about Unknown Armies except that it is well regarded in some circles.

And of all of those games, only Numenera is a vaguely new game. Yeah, Vampire has gotten some new editions, but it's basically an older era game at this point.


I can think of many more heavier games than I can lighter games.

Funny, the only game in my whole collection that isn't d20 based that I don't think I could run on a forum given the time to type up a couple of things is Houses of the Blooded, and that, ironically, is because there's so much weird fluff associated with the game that I wouldn't know where to start. (Disclaimer: My collection contains a bunch of stuff I haven't actually READ yet, so there may be others. I suspect Ars Magica 5th Edition also falls into this category, because, holy crap, Ars Magica.)

The thing about "Heavier" games is that they are usually ALSO the ones that you have to buy $50 books of. So what you've got is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you only pick heavy games, you're stuck with books and not playing them because you can't find anyone else with the books. But if you are deliberately looking for a new game that won't have this problem, you a TON and a half of options.

Maybe if you really want to play a game, you should start looking for games that remove the obstacles to playing them, eh? Because there are a crapton of them if you can just break out of the "Must be a 400 page full color book full of character customization options" mentality.

Knaight
2014-05-19, 05:19 PM
Numenera, by all reports, is pretty light. Vampire didn't require all that much info outside of chargen back when I played it, and it can't have gotten that much more complex. Nobilis, by many reports, is unplayable regardless of whether you have the books or not, and I don't know anything about Unknown Armies except that it is well regarded in some circles.

I wouldn't consider any of these all that light - they still tend to clock in at several hundred pages, for one thing.

Grinner
2014-05-19, 07:53 PM
Funny, the only game in my whole collection that isn't d20 based that I don't think I could run on a forum given the time to type up a couple of things is Houses of the Blooded, and that, ironically, is because there's so much weird fluff associated with the game that I wouldn't know where to start. (Disclaimer: My collection contains a bunch of stuff I haven't actually READ yet, so there may be others. I suspect Ars Magica 5th Edition also falls into this category, because, holy crap, Ars Magica.)

The thing about "Heavier" games is that they are usually ALSO the ones that you have to buy $50 books of. So what you've got is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you only pick heavy games, you're stuck with books and not playing them because you can't find anyone else with the books. But if you are deliberately looking for a new game that won't have this problem, you a TON and a half of options.

Maybe if you really want to play a game, you should start looking for games that remove the obstacles to playing them, eh? Because there are a crapton of them if you can just break out of the "Must be a 400 page full color book full of character customization options" mentality.

You're assuming an awful lot about me there.

I'm merely pointing out that some people simply find games of a certain degree of simplicity unfulfilling. If this was not the case, I suspect Wushu would have a slightly larger market share.

Airk
2014-05-19, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't consider any of these all that light - they still tend to clock in at several hundred pages, for one thing.

I don't think page count maps directly to light/heavy. Fate core is a pretty substantial book, but the mechanics are still very easy.

See also, Dungeon World.

Re: Grinner - I'm only "assuming" about you based on what you are saying. All "you" are the generic you-plural. I think that far more people in the world THINK complexity is important than there are people in the world for whom complexity is ACTUALLY important. I can say this with some confidence, because many, MANY of the people who think complexity is super important have never tested that assertion, and personal tests have indicated that, in fact, it's frequently a misconception.

erikun
2014-05-20, 06:26 AM
I don't find Taking 10 to be a valid solution to the RNG problem in the d20 System. First of all, the entire reason the Take 10 rule exists is because it is a valid problem with the d20 in the first place! And secondly, it is not clear when the Take 10 rule applies and when it does not.

As an example earlier in the thread:

By any sensible interpretation of the situation, you're taking 10. If you decide not to take 10 you are suddenly doing stuff that is beyond the accepted rules of armwrestling: starting before the other person, using your legs and weight, distracting them, etc.
But I suppose you can bitch about how a system doesn't work when you intentionally try to mess it up.
This is not a case of Taking 10 (or not Taking 10). These are circumstance modifiers, and would be giving the character a +2 or more on their roll. A situations where you cannot Take 10 involves distractions or not being able to slowly focus on the task; arm-wrestling in the middle of a bar fight, for example, would not allow either character to Take 10.

What's more, while those are rules for being allowed to Take 10, they are not rules for being forced to Take 10. There is no case that I can think of where a character is forced into Taking 10. Take 10 means taking their time and carefully doing something, as opposed to quickly trying to accomplish something. There's nothing in arm wrestling that prevents a person from quickly trying to pin an opponent's arm! And what's more, the idea that a character must Take 10 if their opponent does is quite silly: multiple examples exist involving opposed checks where one character Takes 10 (generally a guard using Spot) while another character rolls their dice (generally someone using Hide).


The big problem in this situation are that the d20 probability is flat and that the bonuses are considerably small in comparison. +0 vs +4 means only a moderate variation on a 1-20 scale. If you wanted an actually high chance of success, you'd be looking at +0 vs +8 or something larger.

There's also a poor assumption on what the scores actually mean. D&D3e claims that 18 STR is the score you would find for a highly trained olympic-scale individual, which is silly even at a casual glance: olympians can lift well more than 300 pounds over their heads! Real world values seem to indicate closer to a 27 STR score, which is much more reasonable for the competition. (Interestingly, that's a +8 bonus.) Even then, though, an olympic athlete is unlikely to lose an arm-wrestling contest against someone with a desk job who doesn't exercise under any circumstance. That would be a +20 bonus under the system, which means looking at a 40 STR minimum... something definitly not supported under D&D3e's "normal humans are 5th level max" concept.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-20, 06:43 AM
I don't find Taking 10 to be a valid solution to the RNG problem in the d20 System. First of all, the entire reason the Take 10 rule exists is because it is a valid problem with the d20 in the first place!

Well, yes. Taking 10 is an obvious rule patch; it's basically telling DMs that sometimes the skill system just doesn't work, so please use something else, and the rulebooks aren't very good in outlining when this happens.

This issue gets worse in 4E (which explicitly disallows taking 10 in skill encounters) and in 5E (where the modifiers to die rolls are even smaller, making them more random).

Knaight
2014-05-20, 02:03 PM
I don't think page count maps directly to light/heavy. Fate core is a pretty substantial book, but the mechanics are still very easy.

It's not direct, but it is a strong indicator. Fate Core is also a book which, despite having a fair few pages, doesn't really have that much text. It uses a lot of white space, the font size is on the larger end, it's full of lists, etc.

Lorsa
2014-05-21, 03:10 AM
It's not direct, but it is a strong indicator. Fate Core is also a book which, despite having a fair few pages, doesn't really have that much text. It uses a lot of white space, the font size is on the larger end, it's full of lists, etc.

And Vampire has lots of fluff material that can be completely overlooked if you are just interested in the rules. So no, I wouldn't say page count matters either.

TheCountAlucard
2014-05-21, 04:17 AM
Quoting the Player's handbook:

So yeah. Really bad example you picked. Not only are you basically making a direct "who is more X?" comparison, but you picked the one example that was specifically called out in the rulebook as something for which you don't roll dice for.You'll notice that I basically said that, sans a direct quote, pretty early in the thread.

AttilaTheGeek
2014-05-21, 08:25 AM
Here's some math for various dice distributions. For non-math people, the standard deviation is a measure of how spread out a distribution is. As a general rule, you have a 2/3 chance to roll within one standard deviation of the average. (For example, since 3d6 averages 10.5 with a standard deviation of 2.77, you have a 2/3 chance to roll between 10.5-2.77=8 and 10.5+2.77=13.) If you choose to replace your d20 rolls with a bell curve, which one you choose is up to you.


1d20 is simple, averaging 10.5. You have a 25% chance to roll a 5 or below on 1d20. You have a 25.0% chance to roll 5 or below on a d20. A roll with a +3 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 66% of the time, and a roll with a +5 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 74% of the time.
3d6 is the most common bell curve used to replace 1d20. It has an average of 10.5 and a standard deviation of 2.77. You have a 4.6% chance to roll 5 or below on 3d6. In 3d6, a roll with a +3 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 79% of the time, and a roll with a +5 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 90% of the time.
2d10 is more spread out than 3d6, so high or low values are more likely. It has an average of 11 and a standard deviation of 4.06. You have a 6% chance to roll a 5 or below on 2d10. In 2d10, a roll with a +3 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 72% of the time, and a roll with a +5 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 82% of the time.
4d4 is less spread out than 3d6, so high or low values are less likely. It has an average of 10 and a standard deviation of 2.24. You have a 1.95% chance to roll a 5 or below on 4d4. In 4d4, a roll with a +3 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 86% of the time, and a roll with a +5 bonus beats a roll with no modifier 96% of the time.


As for 5E's advantage or disadvantage mechanic, it's not actually as powerful as many people think. In general, taking the higher of 2d20 is roughly equivalent to a +4 bonus. It could also be priced as a +3, depending on the application.


A d20 roll with Advantage averages 13.8. It has a 6.25 chance to roll a 5 or below and a 51% chance to roll a 15 or above. In an opposed roll of a d20 with Advantage against a regular d20, the d20 with Advantage wins 70% of the time and, on average, wins by 3.
A d20 roll with Disadvantage averages 7.17. It has a 43% chance to roll a 5 or below and a 9% chance to roll a 15 or above. In an opposed roll of a d20 with Disadvantage against a regular d20, the d20 with Disadvantage loses 64% of the time and, on average, loses by 3.
In an opposed roll between a d20 with Advantage and a d20 with Disadvantage, the d20 with Advantage will win 85% of the time and, on average, wins by 7.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-21, 09:02 AM
Quoting the Player's handbook:

So yeah. Really bad example you picked. Not only are you basically making a direct "who is more X?" comparison, but you picked the one example that was specifically called out in the rulebook as something for which you don't roll dice for.

It may be a bad example, but his overall point is solid. Yes, it happens relatively often in D&D that the scrawny wizard gets a better result than the menacing rogue on an intimidate check, or that the clumsy dwarf beats the graceful elven ranger at stealth. Yes, as people have pointed out, that happens precisely because the linear spread on the d20 is bigger than the spread of the relevant skill/attribute bonuses. And yes, some people consider that a downside of the system.

Also, strawberry.

Knaight
2014-05-22, 07:05 PM
And Vampire has lots of fluff material that can be completely overlooked if you are just interested in the rules. So no, I wouldn't say page count matters either.

It also has long lists of combat powers, a fairly intricate character sheet, a number of different stats, a fairly long attribute list, a fairly long skill list, etc. I wouldn't call it a rules light game. It's lighter than 3e D&D, but it's not light.

Airk
2014-05-22, 11:05 PM
It also has long lists of combat powers, a fairly intricate character sheet, a number of different stats, a fairly long attribute list, a fairly long skill list, etc. I wouldn't call it a rules light game. It's lighter than 3e D&D, but it's not light.

I'd actually consider Vampire to be significantly HEAVIER than most games of its time. (Remember: This is D&D 2E territory here. 3E won't arrive on the scene with its massive feat list for like another 7 years.) There's nothing light about it.

Knaight
2014-05-22, 11:12 PM
I'd actually consider Vampire to be significantly HEAVIER than most games of its time. (Remember: This is D&D 2E territory here. 3E won't arrive on the scene with its massive feat list for like another 7 years.) There's nothing light about it.

GURPS and HERO were both out though, as were a few others. I'd put it at medium-heavy personally, though I'd consider the case for heavy much stronger than the case for light.