PDA

View Full Version : How does this dice rolling method sound?



qwertyu63
2015-03-04, 07:57 AM
Alright, I am designing a magic system where you build spells on the fly from verbs and nouns (think Ars Magica and you won't be far off the mark). I have an idea for rolling to cast a spell and I want to know what you think.

There are 9 forms of magic; four verbs and five nouns. Wizards have a score in each of these 9 forms; these scores range from 0-5 and increase via training and practice.

To cast a spell, combine a noun with a verb to create the desired effect. Compare the desired effect to the examples (which I have not written yet) to determine the level of the effect; effect levels are on a scale of 1-10 (roughly, 1 is "light someone on fire from across the room" and 10 is "*almost* raise the dead").

Roll 1d6+your score in the verb and 1d6+your score in the noun. If the lower result exceeds the level of the spell, you have cast the spell successfully. If the lower result fails, you have failed to cast the spell. Ignore the higher result.

Anonymouswizard
2015-03-04, 09:52 AM
What's the advantage over 1d6+lower of verb and noun?

qwertyu63
2015-03-04, 10:21 AM
What's the advantage over 1d6+lower of verb and noun?

This method creates a tilt in the numbers. Assuming the forms match, what's left is 2d6w1. The odds table for that is as follows:

1: 30.56%
2: 25.00%
3: 19.44%
4: 13.89%
5: 8.33%
6: 2.78%

The forms shift these numbers around, but I'm still trying to get anydice to behave.

1d6 is a flat 16.67% chance for each result, which is undesired.

Segev
2015-03-04, 10:33 AM
2d6k(low) is going to skew it lower than 1d6. Adding the lower of the two stats to the equation depresses the result range more relative to possibilities.

It becomes a little peculiar in that you could have the d6 assigned to the higher stat still be the "winner" if it rolls sufficiently lower than the other d6 to push the total of the other d6+(lower bonus) as the higher final result.

Honestly, this sounds like it's going to feel very punitive to players. Is that intentional?

qwertyu63
2015-03-04, 11:22 AM
2d6k(low) is going to skew it lower than 1d6. Adding the lower of the two stats to the equation depresses the result range more relative to possibilities.

That is intentional.


It becomes a little peculiar in that you could have the d6 assigned to the higher stat still be the "winner" if it rolls sufficiently lower than the other d6 to push the total of the other d6+(lower bonus) as the higher final result.

That is also intended, but looking at the charts (I finally got anydice to behave) the warping it provides isn't worth the added complexity.

function: cast A:n over B:n {
if A > B { result: B }
result: A}

output [cast 1d6 over 1d6] named "difference of 0"
output [cast 1d6 over 1d6+1] named "difference of 1"
output [cast 1d6 over 1d6+2] named "difference of 2"
output [cast 1d6 over 1d6+3] named "difference of 3"
output [cast 1d6 over 1d6+4] named "difference of 4"
output [cast 1d6 over 1d6+5] named "difference of 5"


Honestly, this sounds like it's going to feel very punitive to players. Is that intentional?

The idea is spells a little bit above your skill are near certain to succeed, but you can attempt to cast spells way above your pay grade and might pull it off.

Joe the Rat
2015-03-04, 11:26 AM
Hmm, lessee...

As a consequence of this system:
You will auto-succeed on any spell effect with a level equal to your lowest form in the combination. (Good call on making that "exceeds level" rather than "meets level": having no skill in an aspect means 1/6 of failing a level 1 effect)
The highest level effect you can create is 5+your lowest form in the combination. Generally speaking, effects at 3+lowest form level are likely to succeed, with progressively lower chances of pulling off higher level effects.

Specialization is an odd situation. Maxing out one form means you are solely limited to what you can do in the other. A master of all things fire (Ignea 5) will need to have a strong scores in the verbs to go with this, otherwise all he's done is change the result from 1d6+verb|1d6+fire (low) to 1d6+verb. I suppose shifting the probability into an effectively flat range rather than a negative slope for all things within their "one mastery" range is a benefit.

My concern here is that this really puts the focus of the rolls on your weaker form. It would be nice for the higher rating to come into play in some form beyond as a curve buffer. Tied results in a duel going to the one with the higher "high" form, for example.

Double-specializing (noun+verb), however, is fairly potent. Dumping all your skill into Aqua/Creo will allow you to pull off some impressive Ice Make effects. Now put a shirt on already.

Surpriser
2015-03-04, 11:36 AM
This method will probably feel quite frustrating in practice.
For one thing, good rolls are exciting and feel "awesome" - and nothing spoils this excitement more than finding out that it is actually worthless.
In addition, this will favor a very "defensive" or pessimistic playstyle. Since the chance for low rolls is so high, players will have an incentive to use only those spells which they can achieve basically without rolling (further increasing the "what a waste"-factor, if eventually double sixes are rolled).

Since you already distinguish between verbs and nouns, why not also separate the effects? A high roll for the noun indicates that precisely the thing you meant is affected, while targetting might be off for low rolls (affecting a different target, using a wrong form of energy or a different quantity than desired). Good values on the verb yield very complicated or powerful effects, while low rolls could result in a diminished or erratic behaviour.

For example, I want to combine "create" and "fire" to incinerate that bad guy over there.
If I am a master of the noun "fire" (or just get lucky with the dice), I can determine precisely that I want his skin and equipment to erupt in flames without anything else being harmed. If I do not get a value high enough, I might instead hit my friend or burn a hole in the floor. Alternatively, for some more interesting failure modes, I might produce only a blast of hot air, give him a terrible sunburn or trace a ring of fire around my target.
For the "create" roll, again, a high roll results in a jet of flames that immolates my target and leaves only ashes. Low rolls could give me something more similar to a candle light or instead manipulate existing fire sources (hitting things along their path to the target).

qwertyu63
2015-03-04, 11:52 AM
Hmm, lessee...

As a consequence of this system:
You will auto-succeed on any spell effect with a level equal to your lowest form in the combination. (Good call on making that "exceeds level" rather than "meets level": having no skill in an aspect means 1/6 of failing a level 1 effect)
The highest level effect you can create is 5+your lowest form in the combination. Generally speaking, effects at 3+lowest form level are likely to succeed, with progressively lower chances of pulling off higher level effects.

Specialization is an odd situation. Maxing out one form means you are solely limited to what you can do in the other. A master of all things fire (Ignea 5) will need to have a strong scores in the verbs to go with this, otherwise all he's done is change the result from 1d6+verb|1d6+fire (low) to 1d6+verb. I suppose shifting the probability into an effectively flat range rather than a negative slope for all things within their "one mastery" range is a benefit.

My concern here is that this really puts the focus of the rolls on your weaker form. It would be nice for the higher rating to come into play in some form beyond as a curve buffer. Tied results in a duel going to the one with the higher "high" form, for example.

Double-specializing (noun+verb), however, is fairly potent. Dumping all your skill into Aqua/Creo will allow you to pull off some impressive Ice Make effects. Now put a shirt on already.

I'm using a different pool of forms than Ars Magica, but you get the idea.

The fact that I typed "exceed" instead of "meet or exceed" is actually a mistake, but it works.

Specialization is not rewarded very well. I am considering replacing it with 1d6+noun+verb and expanding the spell level range to 1-15.

"Now put a shirt on already." Huh?

I'm using a modified form of Four by Five Magic (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Four_By_Five_Magic).

Verbs: (States the desired effect)
Aeugo: Create, enhance, repair.
Infirmo: Destroy, reduce, break.
Defero: Sense, communicate, understand.
Tempero: Control, shape, move.

Nouns: (States the desired target)
Corpus: Body, living creatures, corpses.
Navitus: Energy, fire, wind, electricity, magic.
Materius: Matter, stone, wood, metal, leather.
Mentus: Mind, thoughts, alignment, spirits.
Imagius: Image, illusions, appearance.

This method will probably feel quite frustrating in practice.
For one thing, good rolls are exciting and feel "awesome" - and nothing spoils this excitement more than finding out that it is actually worthless.
In addition, this will favor a very "defensive" or pessimistic playstyle. Since the chance for low rolls is so high, players will have an incentive to use only those spells which they can achieve basically without rolling (further increasing the "what a waste"-factor, if eventually double sixes are rolled).

Noted.


Since you already distinguish between verbs and nouns, why not also separate the effects? A high roll for the noun indicates that precisely the thing you meant is affected, while targetting might be off for low rolls (affecting a different target, using a wrong form of energy or a different quantity than desired). Good values on the verb yield very complicated or powerful effects, while low rolls could result in a diminished or erratic behaviour.

For example, I want to combine "create" and "fire" to incinerate that bad guy over there.
If I am a master of the noun "fire" (or just get lucky with the dice), I can determine precisely that I want his skin and equipment to erupt in flames without anything else being harmed. If I do not get a value high enough, I might instead hit my friend or burn a hole in the floor. Alternatively, for some more interesting failure modes, I might produce only a blast of hot air, give him a terrible sunburn or trace a ring of fire around my target.
For the "create" roll, again, a high roll results in a jet of flames that immolates my target and leaves only ashes. Low rolls could give me something more similar to a candle light or instead manipulate existing fire sources (hitting things along their path to the target).

This is an interesting idea, but sounds a bit complex. I was planning "failure means nothing happens" but "failure means reduced effect" works too.

Joe the Rat
2015-03-04, 12:56 PM
Specialization is not rewarded very well. I am considering replacing it with 1d6+noun+verb and expanding the spell level range to 1-15.

If you keep the "meets" requirement, level 1 effects are effectively cantrips (in the cheap and easy at-will sense), since someone with no ranks in a set of forms could still pull it off at-will. Will the single d6 give you enough variability to suit?

"Now put a shirt on already." Huh?Manga reference.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-03-04, 01:25 PM
It makes sense, but it sounds like it could be fiddly to manage. I'd personally consider revamping it, maybe.

What if you had distinct results depending on whether the noun, verb, or both succeeded? That removes the fiddly "the lowest roll of the two rolls needs to be higher than the target number" bit and makes for more interesting results.

So maybe rolling high enough on the noun part means that you target the spell correctly, and rolling high enough on the verb part means that you do the right thing. If you roll too low on one of them, then the spell misfires accordingly. Maybe it targets you for half the time you were expecting, or it targets an ally instead, if you miss the noun component. Maybe it deals a small bit of ongoing damage instead of a massive amount of flat damage, or it hastes instead of slowing, if you miss the verb.

Just a rough idea. But it comes out similarly, you just have mixed results if one half of the spell passes but the other fails. And you get four discrete results: success, verb failure, noun failure, and failure.

Surpriser
2015-03-05, 04:28 PM
This is an interesting idea, but sounds a bit complex. I was planning "failure means nothing happens" but "failure means reduced effect" works too.
CarpeGuitarrem has the right idea here: Define a few suitable failure modes for each verb and noun and apply them in whatever way is interesting in the current situation. "Wrong target(s)" and "partial/opposite/delayed effect" are probably generally useful for nouns and verbs respectively.

This works best if your system is more of a free-form style. If you need a hard rule and mechanic for every single effect, this won't work as well because interesting failure modes depend on the situation.

Another thing to consider: If you use this version, failure on both components should usually be more severe than a partial failure. Hitting your friend or buffing the enemy is much worse than simple failure and should accordingly occur only on very bad rolls. One possible variant: If the roll fails by not more than the ranks in that form (or half that number), you get a partial, but still beneficial effect or no effect at all. For a failure by more, something really bad happens.