Taking out the Random

[JellyPooga]

So I'm thinking of implementing a rule for a PbP game I want to run, where no dice are rolled; I want to take out the random in favour of dramatic choice.

My initial thought is to grant each player1 a d20's worth of numbers; i.e. every number from 1 to 20, allowing them to "spend" a number of their choice for a given d20 roll. The catch is that you have to spend every number before you get another "set". This would allow a character to have an extraordinary run of "luck" (at the players option) at the expense of having "bad luck" at a later date, or vice versa, or a player might try to balance things out, or weigh the odds to manipulate when the use their numbers for what purpose. It would, in theory, make every "natural 20" a dramatic moment; "Woah! You're using your 20!?! Are you sure you need it now? Wouldn't it be better to save it for later?". It would also give a sense of foreboding when a player realises that he only has "bad" or "lower than average" numbers left, or a sense of smug empowerment when a player knows he has a bunch of good numbers to use in the final fight because he's been frugal with them up to that point. I like the idea of this "dramatic choice" aspect.

However...Advantage and Disadvantage pose a problem. How do I implement the bonus/penalty they impose? Similarly for Portent (and any other abilities I might have overlooked). One option I've considered is a "foreshadow" set of numbers that a player must draw from for any Advantage or Disadvantage numbers, that later will become their "current" set (i.e. for regular rolls, a player draws from Set-A, but for Dis/Advantage they select numbers from Set-B. Once all of Set-A has been depleted, Set-B (minus any numbers that have already been depleted from Dis/Advantage already) becomes Set-A for any future rolls and they get a brand new 1-20 Set-B). Portent, specifically, could potentially draw all it's numbers from this "foreshadow" set. The nice thing about this "foreshadow" set, is that it potentially makes Advantage dangerous and Disadvantage beneficial, because using Advantage for a good numbers is only drawing from your "future luck", so to speak, to avoid having to use bad numbers from your "current luck". On the the flipside, it allows you to "double down" on bad luck with Disadvantage to improve your run of "good luck" later; using up your "bad numbers" from your foreshadow set, so when they become your current set, you've got more good numbers than bad. It's all very karmic.

Does anyone see any particularly bad consequences of removing the luck-factor of rolling dice in favour of "dramatic choice"? Any alternative suggestions on how to implement (Dis)Advantage, or the system as a whole? In all responses, please bear in mind that this is solely for a Play-by-Post game, making book-keeping less of a factor; everything is in writing and real-life time scales are much longer than when playing around a table on game-night.

1In writing this, it occurs to me that another option would be to grant the entire party a single "set" to use before it renews; on the one hand it means renewing the "set" sooner and introducing a new element of teamwork in who gets to use what numbers, on the other hand it might cause conflict should one player "use up" all the "good" numbers selfishly...something to consider.

[Mellack]

It would be easy to burn the bad numbers on relatively inconsequential tasks. "I am going to search the wall for secret doors with a 1, or "I will try to persuade the bartender to give me a free drink with a 4." Also how does this effect the bad guys? How does this work with casters forcing saves?

[cyberfunkr]

You're not really removing random, but switching it to a bio-feed method of determination. To "truly" remove the random, you would have to say that every dice roll is substituted for it's average (So every d20 is worth 11, every d6 is worth 4). But this means their can be no "lucky blow". Every turn just becomes a pre-generated set of numbers. Grinding in the worst possible way.

Would NPCs and monsters also be subject to this "set" of d20 rolls? How would this be fair if each enemy gets their own set, but knowing they will only last a few rounds where as players need to keep their "set" for multiple encounters? What about characters that "waste" their low numbers by saying "I want to try an Insight check on the baker to see if he's lying about the prices of bread."?

I am a little lost in how you think removing random makes the game more about player choice. Humans in real life can have great plans but fail miserably in the execution. Similarly they can just wing it and everything comes out fine. So what is gained by taking out dice rolls to have "dramatic choice"?

[lunaticfringe]

It would be easy to burn the bad numbers on relatively inconsequential tasks. "I am going to search the wall for secret doors with a 1, or "I will try to persuade the bartender to give me a free drink with a 4." Also how does this effect the bad guys? How does this work with casters forcing saves?

I'm curious about how enemy saves work too. Could a caster avoid much the downside by selecting spells w/saves?

A rogue with reliable Talent could burn off low numbers in the set. How would this be altered if at all?

[Foxhound438]

It seems interesting to me, but the pitfall could be that you have players trying to "burn" their bad luck on do-nothing out of combat skill checks before mopping up encounters with critical eldritch smites and such. I'd probably have different pools for attacks, saves, and skill checks, and no "chopping at walls" to refresh either. Maybe have the pools only used while you're in a situation where time is imperative like combat, and otherwise you generally use passive scores or determine the scale of time needed to do something based on the person's bonus.


1In writing this, it occurs to me that another option would be to grant the entire party a single "set" to use before it renews; on the one hand it means renewing the "set" sooner and introducing a new element of teamwork in who gets to use what numbers, on the other hand it might cause conflict should one player "use up" all the "good" numbers selfishly...something to consider.

now THIS could be fun- everyone rolls initiative, and after that it's first come first serve to the dice. Remove any bonuses from initiative to prevent anyone from being unduely advantaged, and you have a nice little game of "who's going to screw over their friends", AKA, how to make friends secretly hate each other without having to buy mario party.

[BurgerBeast]

I think Mellack raises the most likely and obvious consequence to gameplay.

However assuming you have a means to overcome this: advantage and abilities such as lucky and portent, in my opinion, aren’t too bad. Advantage let’s you “burn” a 1 or 2 with no consequence by coupling it with a high roll. Portent might run on scheduled results, such as 1, 10, 20; 2, 9, 19; 3, 11, 18... etc... and add them to your current pool, and they can be used to intentionally burn other rolls.

[JellyPooga]

It would be easy to burn the bad numbers on relatively inconsequential tasks. "I am going to search the wall for secret doors with a 1, or "I will try to persuade the bartender to give me a free drink with a 4." Also how does this effect the bad guys? How does this work with casters forcing saves?

I'm foreseeing a certain amount of "player buy-in" to simply not abuse the system in this way. If I don't get that buy-in, then a possible solution is to play by-the-book and only actually allow rolls I've specifically asked for; no players saying "I'm searching the wall, I roll a 1 on Perception", rather them asking "Can I search the wall?" and my replying "Ok, make a Perception check; what number are you using?" OR "[checks Passive Perception] You find nothing/something". Either response puts control of how often and when rolls are made in the GMs hands (which technically is where it lies anyway; many groups just tend to shift it into the players for convenience).


You're not really removing random, but switching it to a bio-feed method of determination. To "truly" remove the random, you would have to say that every dice roll is substituted for it's average (So every d20 is worth 11, every d6 is worth 4). But this means their can be no "lucky blow". Every turn just becomes a pre-generated set of numbers. Grinding in the worst possible way.

Would NPCs and monsters also be subject to this "set" of d20 rolls? How would this be fair if each enemy gets their own set, but knowing they will only last a few rounds where as players need to keep their "set" for multiple encounters? What about characters that "waste" their low numbers by saying "I want to try an Insight check on the baker to see if he's lying about the prices of bread."?

I am a little lost in how you think removing random makes the game more about player choice. Humans in real life can have great plans but fail miserably in the execution. Similarly they can just wing it and everything comes out fine. So what is gained by taking out dice rolls to have "dramatic choice"?

To answer the first; I hadn't really got as far as NPCs in my thoughts, but there's two options in my mind; the first is to have NPC's roll randomly. It's something that would differentiate PC from NPC. The second is that the GM (i.e. me) would have a "set" to use for all NPC's rather than each individual NPC having its own set.

To answer the second; D&D isn't a reality simulator. It's a story-telling system. Humans can have great plans that fail and vice versa, sure, but we're not talking about humans; we're talking about protagonists. If a protagonist "rolls well" and succeeds at everything forever, the story is boring. If they "roll badly" and fail everything...well, in that case, the story is a mite shorter. By forcing a range of results, from good to bad, we get an interesting story of failures and successes, but by giving the players the choice of when to have those successes, we allow those players more agency to make the drama, well, dramatic. They get to choose when they roll poorly when searching for a secret door, or attack a monster. They get to choose the "effort" or amount of "luck" their character is putting in or experiencing in a given scene. There's little as frustrating as incessantly rolling low over the course of a session, your character contributing little to nothing. Similarly, there's nothing exciting about that "jammy git" who keeps rolling high, making everyone else look bad by his/her incessant success.

Imagine being able to choose your failures and describe them in an amusing or tragic manner; your failure is no longer frustrating, but a choice you've made. A choice, further, made in the knowledge that for every "bad" roll you make, you're "saving" a good roll for a later, perhaps more important, scene. Alternatively, it's the consequence of spending all your good luck earlier in the adventure. This makes the failure a significant and satisfying choice or a consequence of earlier success, instead of a frustrating and unavoidable happenstance. Imagine being reduced to 0hp only to realise that you're all out of rolls above 10? Ooops! Should have saved a little something for later, maybe? Imagine the same situation, except you've still got that natural 20 in the bag? How smug is the feeling then?


I'm curious about how enemy saves work too. Could a caster avoid much the downside by selecting spells w/saves?

A rogue with reliable Talent could burn off low numbers in the set. How would this be altered if at all?

Hmm...Reliable Talent could be an issue; hadn't thought of that. Then again, Reliable Talent modifies results rather than giving several results to choose from (as with (Dis)Advantage, Lucky or Portent). I don't really have an answer there; I'll have to give it some thought.

[Keravath]

You could do advantage and disadvantage by adding or subtracting a static +/-5 from the number selected. That is what is done for passive skills and could be useful here. I would tend toward not using two numbers since players could drop their lowest and choose the lowest that would hit resulting in a much more favourable pool left over. They could also burn through their numbers much faster almost guaranteeing that every number used was a hit.

On the other hand, a +5 means that they have to still consider when to use up the low numbers.

I'd also suggest having one set of numbers for combat and a second set for out of combat to prevent players from burning numbers on meaningless skill checks.

All that said :) ... my personal feeling is that rolling the dice is actually an important and fun part of the game and turning the dice rolling into strategic number choice might not be that much fun for some.

[JellyPooga]

All that said :) ... my personal feeling is that rolling the dice is actually an important and fun part of the game and turning the dice rolling into strategic number choice might not be that much fun for some.

It's certainly something I'd run by my players 1st! For me, the random factor of rolling dice is something that detracts from the strategy of gaming as a whole; not just roleplaying. In particular reference to RPGs, it detracts from the storytelling element; the events in novels or cinema are not decided by the throw of a dice, but by what ia dramatically appropriate. Yes, random dice rolls can result in unexpected drama, but in my 20-something years of gaming, I've found they rarely do!

Back on topic;

I thought of the +/-5 thing for advantage and it has a lot of merit. It certainly removes complexity compared to my suggestion. What about Portent, though? The biggest boon of Portent is being able to choose when to use those additional rolls it grants, but under my system, everyone has that boon (to an even greater degree, in many respects).

[Mellack]

I still think you may find it too easy to game the rolls, even if you limit it to combat only. For example a polearm master would miss with the bonus attack rather than their main. Characters may use a second weapon just to burn off the low numbers with minimal cost. Characters would always succeed on their big attacks/spells and only ever miss on the minor ones. You may find that a significant change to game balance.
I personally would find the game less exciting as you know what your outcomes will be rather than having that risk of hoping your attempt succeeds.

[JellyPooga]

I still think you may find it too easy to game the rolls, even if you limit it to combat only. For example a polearm master would miss with the bonus attack rather than their main. Characters may use a second weapon just to burn off the low numbers with minimal cost. Characters would always succeed on their big attacks/spells and only ever miss on the minor ones. You may find that a significant change to game balance.
I personally would find the game less exciting as you know what your outcomes will be rather than having that risk of hoping your attempt succeeds.

Possibly. Then again, forgoing a shield to use TWF or taking a feat (to use the two examples you give) just to game the system seems like a high price to me. Sure, the extra attack from using an off-hand weapon has minor consequence of failure, but on the other hand you're using a smaller weapon (unless you, again, spend a feat on it) and you're using a bonus action every turn just to manipulate the odds.

Further, if the purpose of the system is to introduce a level of dramatic choice then, as a player, you're choosing to remove the dramatic element in favour of better odds; you've chosen the dull, reliable, safe path and that's fine because you've paid a price for it in lower AC, lower damage and lower agency. Lower risk, lower reward. The player next to you with a bigger sword or who's burning all his good numbers in a fight or on a social encounter is hitting more, doing more damage, influencing the game where he wants to influence the game, whether that be in combat or out of combat. Sure, he pays the price later, but he has that choice to have that one shining moment of glory. 'Minimal-risk' guy might be doing better on average, but his impact is smaller, his influence less.

As for the excitement of rolling; sure, I can appreciate that "unknown factor" and it's one reason why I'm still not completely sold on this idea myself. I think you're right that this system will change game balance because it means the players will, on the whole, succeed more; if you know the odds and you know your bonuses, you can use the numbers required rather than overshooting (e.g. if you know you need to hit AC:15 and that you have +5 to hit, any number 10 or higher will do, so you'll spend the lowest required and available). Increased difficulty may be a solution to this, as might be hiding all DC's and AC (though the latter makes for a slower game).

[EdenIndustries]

I really like this idea! 5e may not be the best system for it (as others have mentioned it can break down at certain points), but it's still a cool idea.

[Naanomi]

So I just pick my wild-surge result then?

[Asmotherion]

And people say I'm a control freak.

Just kidding. Sounds interesting, but it would need a lot of work on the DM's part (include a lot of plot twists) to keep it interesting, and keep them at their toes. Like, make them never know when they'll really need to save that 20 to save the day by convincing the shopkeeper to sell them the McGuffin he otherwise never would, or have them waste a 20 or two on really threating merceneries with regular commoner stats, and then fight the boss fight with low numbers.

[jdolch]

I think you'll run into a lot of nitty-gritty balancing problems, some of which are already mentioned in this thread.

[MaxWilson]

I'd also suggest having one set of numbers for combat and a second set for out of combat to prevent players from burning numbers on meaningless skill checks.

Doesn't change much. You could still burn your high numbers early to kill most of the monsters, then whiff a bunch of times on the last kobold.

I appreciate the idea behind wanting dramatic choices to matter, but I don't feel like controlling procedural resolution like combat die rolls is the right place for this idea. I'd suggest something more like DramaSystem's drama tokens: a mechanic for ensuring that *emotional* wins and losses are balanced. Die rolls aren't drama, they're just a procedural step on the road to drama.

[Laserlight]

I think the uncertainty of how the dice will fall helps to make the game more interesting.

A couple of things I might consider instead:
a) hand out a few Inspiration to be used per LR.
b) each turn, you may divide your Proficiency bonus as you wish among a Skill Check, AC, Saving Throw, Attack Roll, Damage, or as a penalty to an enemy's save. That one needs more thought but it would let you focus on what you most wanted to accomplish.
c) Once per LR the PC can specify "I roll a 20". When he does, the DM gets a marker good for a Natural 1 to be applied to that player later on.
d) The PC can ignore the die roll and succeed, but at a cost. Perhaps he hits the BBEG but in so doing disarms himself ("I throw my sword!") or takes damage ("I run onto his sword to get to him") or takes some other penalty (temporarily blinded, prone, whatever).

[willdaBEAST]

So I'm thinking of implementing a rule for a PbP game I want to run, where no dice are rolled; I want to take out the random in favour of dramatic choice.

My initial thought is to grant each player1 a d20's worth of numbers; i.e. every number from 1 to 20, allowing them to "spend" a number of their choice for a given d20 roll. The catch is that you have to spend every number before you get another "set". This would allow a character to have an extraordinary run of "luck" (at the players option) at the expense of having "bad luck" at a later date, or vice versa, or a player might try to balance things out, or weigh the odds to manipulate when the use their numbers for what purpose. It would, in theory, make every "natural 20" a dramatic moment
I was trying to come up with a similar system to build a game system and toyed with the idea of using suits from a deck of cards. So instead of 1-20, you'd have 1-10, jack, queen, king and ace. You'd make tracking a lot easier by flipping or discarding the card you used.

[RobD]

I was trying to come up with a similar system to build a game system and toyed with the idea of using suits from a deck of cards. So instead of 1-20, you'd have 1-10, jack, queen, king and ace. You'd make tracking a lot easier by flipping or discarding the card you used.

I was going to mention this. I've seen some people 'dealing' each player a hand of cards for their 'rolls,' and only getting a new hand when the old one is used up. Seems like a nice compromise; the players have some choice in the value they 'roll,' but it's not completely up to them (though obviously there'd have to be some adjudicating for the higher numbers). They literally have to deal with the hand that fate dealt them.

[JellyPooga]

So I just pick my wild-surge result then?Nope. That one's a percentile :smallwink: You don't get to choose your damage rolls either; this would only apply to Attack Rolls, Ability Checks and Saving Throws.

And people say I'm a control freak.

Just kidding. Sounds interesting, but it would need a lot of work on the DM's part (include a lot of plot twists) to keep it interesting, and keep them at their toes. Like, make them never know when they'll really need to save that 20 to save the day by convincing the shopkeeper to sell them the McGuffin he otherwise never would, or have them waste a 20 or two on really threating merceneries with regular commoner stats, and then fight the boss fight with low numbers.I don't know that it'd be particularly more work for the GM to keep it interesting; just the regular depletion of resources (HP, spell slots, etc.) combined with the depletion of numbers available should keep tension high. As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this system would lend itself to a high-challenge adventure; i.e. where every dice roll really counts; no "fight a couple-o-kobolds" encounters just to deplete resources, or traps that just burn a few HP. I'm envisioning a game in which if the players are rolling dice to haggle with a merchant and burn off a few low numbers, that there would be consequences of that decision; perhaps he refuses to trade with them at a later date, or spreads rumour about them around town, lowering their reputation or rewards.

The point is that there should not be any insignificant rolls.


Doesn't change much. You could still burn your high numbers early to kill most of the monsters, then whiff a bunch of times on the last kobold.

I appreciate the idea behind wanting dramatic choices to matter, but I don't feel like controlling procedural resolution like combat die rolls is the right place for this idea. I'd suggest something more like DramaSystem's drama tokens: a mechanic for ensuring that *emotional* wins and losses are balanced. Die rolls aren't drama, they're just a procedural step on the road to drama.I really want to pick up DramaSystem (aka: Hillfolk), but from what I've heard about it (ok...I admit, all I know about it is from that one lindybeige vid he did on it), it has a very different focus to D&D. The drama in D&D isn't really in emotional exchange (though nothing stops it from being so; there's just no rules for it), but rather in conflict (whether that conflict be social, physical or environmental) and that (in D&D) is governed by those procedural dice rolls. If the die rolls aren't producing drama (which they won't; they just provide a facsimile of it because they are random), then nothing will.


I was trying to come up with a similar system to build a game system and toyed with the idea of using suits from a deck of cards. So instead of 1-20, you'd have 1-10, jack, queen, king and ace. You'd make tracking a lot easier by flipping or discarding the card you used.I'm currently developing a game system involving cards and it's where I got this idea from in the first place! I like the idea of using playing cards a lot; in large part because handling cards and shuffling decks is a visceral, touch-based sensation; somewhat of a gimmick, if you will. This idea is specifically being designed for Play-by-Post; no cards, just numbers.

[Pelle]

For me, the random factor of rolling dice is something that detracts from the strategy of gaming as a whole; not just roleplaying. In particular reference to RPGs, it detracts from the storytelling element; the events in novels or cinema are not decided by the throw of a dice, but by what ia dramatically appropriate. Yes, random dice rolls can result in unexpected drama, but in my 20-something years of gaming, I've found they rarely do!


I feel this is a misunderstanding, or maybe rather a radically different view, of what the role of the dice in a rpg should be. (IMO) The role is not to produce drama, it is to resolve uncertain dramatic situations, created by the players and the npcs. If the character needs to make an uncertain jump over a chasm to escape pursuers, that's a dramatic situation. Rolling the dice brings tension to the table. The player selecting their best card is the opposite of tension for me. If random dice rolls rarely have tension in your game, you should roll them less! Only save the dice for when there is a dramatic situation.

Now, if you want the 'die result to be a strategic element of the game, it might be worthwhile to implement. (Personally, I don't want this kind of meta dissociated player decision in my rpgs, but ymmv) The full 1-20 set of cards seems a bit wonky and inelegant to me, clearly based on the d20, but not the best solution if designed from scratch. Maybe keep the range of values, but reduce the number of cards. Every player should preferably cycle trough some times during a session.

You should take a look at the hand management element of the legendary A Game Of Thrones Board Game. There you have a hand of 7 leaders with different values and abilities, and you have to play one in every combat. You don't get the cards back until you have cycled through the whole hand (and you have to leave the last card played for next cycle). So there is a big element of hand management. And since both opponents in a combat selects their leader card in secret, there is still tension over who will win, even though the choice is non-random. So for your rpg, I think the GM should also use the same type of card deck as the players. Possibly using it instead of static AC/DCs, not only opposed rolls, to keep the tension...

[Louro]

You might want to have a look at the amazing "tactical-dramatical combat system" paranoia. Or the drama dies from Dungeons: the dragoning 40K.

Adapting it to d&d would go like:
Avdantage is mostly earned by attempting dramatic actions.
*Paranoia: Let players succeed on their heroic epic moment. Make them pay for it.
*DD40K: players can add stuff into the scene (per every +5 exceeding the DC)

- I wanna jump over the orc's head and attack the orc warchief midair.
- Sure, roll with advantage
- HIT
- And there goes the chieftain's left arm, good hit.
*Paranoia DM: Unfortunately you land at the troll foot. You hear him saying "oh, how convenient"
*DD40k: Cool, I jump over the orc, get the chief arm and I grab his shield before it falls on the ground

If you are looking for some dramatic action, this is the way to go.

[JellyPooga]

I feel this is a misunderstanding, or maybe rather a radically different view, of what the role of the dice in a rpg should be. (IMO) The role is not to produce drama, it is to resolve uncertain dramatic situations, created by the players and the npcs. If the character needs to make an uncertain jump over a chasm to escape pursuers, that's a dramatic situation. Rolling the dice brings tension to the table. The player selecting their best card is the opposite of tension for me. If random dice rolls rarely have tension in your game, you should roll them less! Only save the dice for when there is a dramatic situation.The tension I foresee is not when you've got a "full deck", but in going into a situation when your "deck" is depleted; when a character maybe only has a few good cards left to them, amidst a bunch of dross. The strategic tension of deciding when to use those last few good cards, or having to accept a failure because you need that last good card for what your party has planned for the next round of combat, is just as great as the tension any die roll produces, if not greater IMO. After all, you can't just use the dross building up to the final encounter, because you can't "fail" your way to the end; you'd never get there in the first place. It's one reason why the "party deckl" idea is so appealing; with four "decks", you can carry the fight between the party and still have a bunch of good numbers left for later encounters; with a shared deck, that isn't an option.


Now, if you want the 'die result to be a strategic element of the game, it might be worthwhile to implement. (Personally, I don't want this kind of meta dissociated player decision in my rpgs, but ymmv) The full 1-20 set of cards seems a bit wonky and inelegant to me, clearly based on the d20, but not the best solution if designed from scratch. Maybe keep the range of values, but reduce the number of cards. Every player should preferably cycle trough some times during a session.

You should take a look at the hand management element of the legendary A Game Of Thrones Board Game. There you have a hand of 7 leaders with different values and abilities, and you have to play one in every combat. You don't get the cards back until you have cycled through the whole hand (and you have to leave the last card played for next cycle). So there is a big element of hand management. And since both opponents in a combat selects their leader card in secret, there is still tension over who will win, even though the choice is non-random. So for your rpg, I think the GM should also use the same type of card deck as the players. Possibly using it instead of static AC/DCs, not only opposed rolls, to keep the tension...I like this. Obviously implementing something very similar is a radical change to the system and I might as well start over rather than play D&D. That said, having a smaller deck is certainly an option. Maybe all the "odds" below 10 and all the "evens" above it, for a deck of 10 cards? That said, I'm not looking to cycle an entire deck every encounter; the point is to be able to, even force players to go into an encounter with an already depleted deck, so maybe a smaller deck is not the way. You've certainly given me food for thought though.


You might want to have a look at the amazing "tactical-dramatical combat system" paranoia. Or the drama dies from Dungeons: the dragoning 40K.

Adapting it to d&d would go like:
Avdantage is mostly earned by attempting dramatic actions.
*Paranoia: Let players succeed on their heroic epic moment. Make them pay for it.
*DD40K: players can add stuff into the scene (per every +5 exceeding the DC)

- I wanna jump over the orc's head and attack the orc warchief midair.
- Sure, roll with advantage
- HIT
- And there goes the chieftain's left arm, good hit.
*Paranoia DM: Unfortunately you land at the troll foot. You hear him saying "oh, how convenient"
*DD40k: Cool, I jump over the orc, get the chief arm and I grab his shield before it falls on the ground

If you are looking for some dramatic action, this is the way to go.

I'm not looking to add "dramatics" (i.e. fantastic exploits and fancy moves), but dramatic choice. The option of choosing when you fail and when you succeed, or more accurately, the question; how much are you willing to gamble on success? By choosing a high card, you're risking your future success in favour of a higher chance of current success. By choosing a low card, you're risking (or resigning yourself to) present failure in favour of a better chance at future success. If every choice is significant, it creates tension, or drama.

It's worth pointing out that while using this system, players have a better chance of success and will tend to succeed more often, success will rarely be guaranteed. They still won't know DC's and AC's and as I've mentioned, damage rolls and other random factors will still be random. It's very possible that a player might "gamble" a high card and still fail.

[DanyBallon]

Just on the topic of advantage/disadvantage/potent/lucky, etc. I'd let them use the same set of number, these ability will let them burn through their set faster, which can be a boon if carefully planned.

About the general idea, it will definitely lead to players trying to optimizing their numbers by picking the ones that are more suitable for the situation. But it's a form of micromanaging that can be interesting, especially in a play-by-post game, as you have more time to plan your actions

[Pelle]

I like this. Obviously implementing something very similar is a radical change to the system and I might as well start over rather than play D&D. That said, having a smaller deck is certainly an option. Maybe all the "odds" below 10 and all the "evens" above it, for a deck of 10 cards? That said, I'm not looking to cycle an entire deck every encounter; the point is to be able to, even force players to go into an encounter with an already depleted deck, so maybe a smaller deck is not the way. You've certainly given me food for thought though.


You don't need to cycle every encounter, but you should cycle at least a couple of times every session. Otherwise, you don't see the effect of the choices you make, to save your good or bad cards for later. And then it's not so important to keep track of the deck state between sessions either. Try to estimate how many 'rolls' you need per session, and use that to decide how many cards you need. If it's one deck for the whole party, maybe 20 is ok. Depends on your goals, but keep the deck symmetric [1,3,5,7,10,11,14,16,18,20]? Depends on how many combats you have per session, but still, there are not so many rolls per player in a combat either.

What's great about the AGoT board game hand management, is the mind games it creates. One player will win the combat if he plays his best card. Then the opponent should play his worst card to get rid of it for later, since he'll lose anyways. But then the 'winning' player may win with a lower card, which means the 'losing' player might win if he plays a big card instead! Additionally, some cards kill units if you win, some protect against that, some can spite the opponent even in a loss, etc, complicating the decision...

[JellyPooga]

You don't need to cycle every encounter, but you should cycle at least a couple of times every session. Otherwise, you don't see the effect of the choices you make, to save your good or bad cards for later. And then it's not so important to keep track of the deck state between sessions either. Try to estimate how many 'rolls' you need per session, and use that to decide how many cards you need. If it's one deck for the whole party, maybe 20 is ok. Depends on your goals, but keep the deck symmetric [1,3,5,7,10,11,14,16,18,20]? Depends on how many combats you have per session, but still, there are not so many rolls per player in a combat either.

Bear in mind this is specifically for a Play-by-Post game; "session count" isn't an issue because there are no sessions, as such. Rolls per encounter and encounter frequency for a given expedition/adventure (between which I imagine I'd reset the decks) are worth taking a look at, certainly.


What's great about the AGoT board game hand management, is the mind games it creates. One player will win the combat if he plays his best card. Then the opponent should play his worst card to get rid of it for later, since he'll lose anyways. But then the 'winning' player may win with a lower card, which means the 'losing' player might win if he plays a big card instead! Additionally, some cards kill units if you win, some protect against that, some can spite the opponent even in a loss, etc, complicating the decision...

I've played the GoT game you're talking about and yes, I agree; it's a good system for mind-games, as you put it. It's certainly been an influencing factor on the entirely card-based system I'm developing separately from the idea I'm discussing in this thread. For this idea, as I say, it's a bit more radical of a change than I'm looking for, though.

[Naanomi]

Nope. That one's a percentile :smallwink: You don't get to choose your damage rolls either; this would only apply to Attack Rolls, Ability Checks and Saving Throws.
True, though to be pedantic the roll to see *if* you wild surge is a d20 (but not an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw)... burning low rolls on wild surges ironically makes wild Sorcerer potentially the least random class in this system

Elven accuracy would be interesting in this system... my Attack roll is 1, 2, 19 of course!

Halfling Luck would also be strange... essentially just totally tossing the ‘1’ off your list for all practical purposes

[MoiMagnus]

Any alternative suggestions on how to implement (Dis)Advantage, or the system as a whole?
You play 2 cards, and take the minimum/maximum of both? So that roll with advantage allow you to get rid of bad cards, while roll with disadvantages require you to burn 2 good cards to succeed.
Alternatively, you can use one card + one dice, and use the minimum/maximum of both.


I'm foreseeing a certain amount of "player buy-in" to simply not abuse the system in this way. If I don't get that buy-in, then a possible solution is to play by-the-book and only actually allow rolls I've specifically asked for; no players saying "I'm searching the wall, I roll a 1 on Perception", rather them asking "Can I search the wall?" and my replying "Ok, make a Perception check; what number are you using?" OR "[checks Passive Perception] You find nothing/something". Either response puts control of how often and when rolls are made in the GMs hands (which technically is where it lies anyway; many groups just tend to shift it into the players for convenience).

The problem is that there is no clear difference between:
Dramatic choice (you chose what is the most interesting for the scenario)
VS Optimization of cards (you keep good result for important task, and bad result for less important stuff)
VS Optimization of actions (you choose your actions depending on your hand. If you have a bad hand, you make "useless actions" until you have a good hand)
VS Abuse (you try to find a the most efficient way to burn your bad cards with bad actions without consequences)

And the way NPC works is unclear...

Suggested solution:
Everytime a roll has to be made during a player turn, a card is used by a player, the DM keep it until a NPC use it.
Everytime a roll has to be made during a NPC turn, a card is used by the DM, and given back to its owner.
(The DM should try to give back cards to players that use more cards than others. And will "behave as the player". If a card is given for a "dump roll", he will try to use it back for a "dump roll")
In the case a player or the DM run out of cards, use 10 as a result.

Advantages increase the value of a card as follows: Floor(N/2)+10


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20


Disadvantages decrease the value of a card as follows: Ceil(N/2)


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10


(Those tables are exactly what the average of what an advantage and disadvantage gives. For example, with a disadvantage, if you know you obtain a 20 on your first die, you will obtain in average 10 on the other die, so your result will be 10 in average).

Alternatively, in a more simple way, you can just consider advantage and disadvantages as +/-5