Roll for 12s: Varying approaches to dice checks

[Notafish]

There's nothing new under the sun -- so I expect this has already been used somewhere -- but I came up with a twist on "roll versus DC/TN" resolution systems the other day and I wanted to share.

This system is based on having 3 options - rather than the usual single option - to use for dice rolls in a "[roll+bonus] vs Target Number" resolution system in order to vary in the feel of rolling depending on a character's approach to the task at hand.

The following examples use a system where the maximum rolled value is 12. Some descriptors for approaches have been added, but the approaches could be instead linked to character classes or specific techniques, rather than a character's mentality.

For a Cautious approach, roll 3d4. The average rolled value is 7.5, but there is only a 1/64 chance of rolling a 12

For a Measured approach, roll 2d6. The average rolled value is 7, and there is a 1/36 chance of rolling a 12.

For an Impetuous approach, roll a d12. The average rolled value is 6.5 and there is a 1/12 chance of rolling a 12.

Of course, other combinations of dice also exist that can yield a maximum value of 12, but the above have an intuitive trade-off between reliability and critical/high-value potential.

For systems where the maximum rolled value is 20 (such as D&D), a similar system could be used by adding a d8 and making a roll of 12 on the "approach dice" a critical value*. This modification would come with complications - for example, it would lead to slightly higher average rolls than a d20 and might also make a system like Advantage more cumbersome. Possible (dis)advantage alternatives could involve substituting a 2d20b1 roll when advantaged or adding/subtracting 1dX (X being a d4 through 12, depending on approach) from the final value.

Having multiple options for dice rolls may help to vary the feel of different personality-based approaches to problem-solving. It also opens up possibilities for additional rule tweaks in the game based on dice value combinations or re-roll options, which could enhance systems meant to support the feel of accomplishing complex or multi-layered tasks such as hacking, hunting, or magic.







*how to deal with extended crit ranges (hi, Champion!) would be another issue altogether.

[BRC]

Huh, this is a really interesting concept.

I don't have anything to say about it right now, but I'm intrigued.

[GloatingSwine]

I think this falls into a trap that 3D4 and 2D6 aren't different enough probability spreads and also 3D4 is basically almost always better.

For example if basic "averagely difficult thing" success lies in the middle of the outcome range at 7, 3D4 has a 10% greater chance of giving you at least 7 than 2D6, but only a 1.2% lower chance of giving you a 12.

In fact in those middle ranges 3D4 is I would say probably too reliable.

[NichG]

I've liked the idea for weapon damage that rolling maximum on the weapon damage dice would give you an opportunity to apply a debuff to the target. So that 1d4 dagger becomes useful if you want to prioritize the debuffs, while 2d6+ weapons are mostly going to just be giving you damage. Basically something where hitting the rare result means something different than the total roll result.

[Quertus]

I’ll take my “extremely practiced programmer” 6d2 roll? :smallbiggrin:

Now, why did I say something that silly? Several reasons. Because math is hard (or people think math is hard), and I could see a developer adding such a roll in without “mathing” what that roll means, and therefore without fluffing that mechanic accordingly.

Because my code has much less variance than my words, and it’d be nice for a system to acknowledge that, rather than it (falsely) assuming that it must be because I must use more care in coding than in selecting my words.

But, my own pet peeves aside? Hmmm…

Um… do we really want to say “careful has less chance of a(n unexpected) good outcome, of a critical success”? That the best cookie, the one shown as an example to others, is more likely to come from the children haphazardly throwing dough and sprinkles onto the pan, than from the child carefully planning and measuring to get things right? I don’t think that that matches reality, or sends a very good message, tbh.

So, while it’s interesting from a Gamist perspective, I think it fails at Simulation, and at… producing a healthy Narrative, I guess.

[Notafish]

I think this falls into a trap that 3D4 and 2D6 aren't different enough probability spreads and also 3D4 is basically almost always better.

For example if basic "averagely difficult thing" success lies in the middle of the outcome range at 7, 3D4 has a 10% greater chance of giving you at least 7 than 2D6, but only a 1.2% lower chance of giving you a 12.

In fact in those middle ranges 3D4 is I would say probably too reliable.

That's a fair criticism. If you could use 3d4 for all checks, you'd likely need to invoke a cost of some kind for being "cautious", like a status effect or an initiative penalty.

[Notafish]

So, while it’s interesting from a Gamist perspective, I think it fails at Simulation, and at… producing a healthy Narrative, I guess.

:smalltongue: Funnily/ironically enough, looking at Powered by the Apocalypse stuff (which seems almost entirely oriented around narrative) was what made me think of this.

[NichG]

I’ll take my “extremely practiced programmer” 6d2 roll? :smallbiggrin:

Now, why did I say something that silly? Several reasons. Because math is hard (or people think math is hard), and I could see a developer adding such a roll in without “mathing” what that roll means, and therefore without fluffing that mechanic accordingly.

Because my code has much less variance than my words, and it’d be nice for a system to acknowledge that, rather than it (falsely) assuming that it must be because I must use more care in coding than in selecting my words.

But, my own pet peeves aside? Hmmm…

Um… do we really want to say “careful has less chance of a(n unexpected) good outcome, of a critical success”? That the best cookie, the one shown as an example to others, is more likely to come from the children haphazardly throwing dough and sprinkles onto the pan, than from the child carefully planning and measuring to get things right? I don’t think that that matches reality, or sends a very good message, tbh.

So, while it’s interesting from a Gamist perspective, I think it fails at Simulation, and at… producing a healthy Narrative, I guess.

Well, the 'child haphazardly throwing stuff' is more about the modifier. To be apples to apples the comparison should be something like a cooking competition where one chef prepares the same dishes they prepare every day at their restaurant, and the other chef tries stuff like souffles or highly technical preparations that have a lot of ways they can go wrong but are much more impressive when they go right.

For the programming example, it'd be the difference between e.g. writing maintainable modular code but which has some amount of overhead for things like exception handling or guarding against buffer overflows or namespace collisions or whatnot, versus highly optimized demoscene code that looks like something from the IOCCC but is blazingly fast, except that maybe you've got a good chance there's some exploit or difference in run environment that will make the entire thing come tumbling down. If its like 'this is running on a system 2000x more powerful than it needs to be' then you can be super cautious. If you're trying to make Skyrim work on a graphing calculator, the cautious approach might not get you there and you're going to have to do something hacky to have a chance of making it happen.

[Telok]

Hmm. Risk/caution dice? Haven't done any math on it, just an idea.

Rolls are 2d10 [or 3d6 or 1d20 or etc. vs 12+
Notation; "+d6:6" means the d6 rolled a six

Take a risk by adding a d6
Success+d6:6 is success with a bonus
Success+d6:1 is success with a complication
Fail+d6:6 is a fail with a side benefit/retry bonus
Fail+d6:1 is a crit fail

Be cautious by adding a d6
Success+d6:1 is takes longer or a lesser amount of success
Fail+d6:6 is a partial success

Both approaches increase success rates, risk adds a chance of problems, caution just mitigates failure. Could try it with the risk/caution die matching the other rolled dice.

Maybe use all d10s. Advantage is +1d10 & drop low, disadvantage is same but drop high. Lets adv/dis stack up dice, 3x disadv is 5d10 drop three highest. Take a risk to add a die (or negate a disadv die) & if any numbers match on the rolls the result is a more extreme success or failure. Would have to stress that the "more extreme" only applies when adding risk dice.

Alternate idea; 2d10 vs 12+, taking a risk moves you to 2d12 but doubles are trouble or complication. Being cautious is 3d6 but triples are trouble. Although I think the math is off on that somehow.

[False God]

I would argue for some kind of time element here as a balancing resource.
IE in D&D terms the impetuous approach would be a Swift/Bonus Action.
The "normal" approach would be a Standard Action.
And the cautious approach would be a Full Turn (or more, as appropriate).

If all checks take place in the same span of time (a single action or whatever) then there's no reason to never not use the cautious approach.

I'd also argue that the "normal" approach should be whatever the default method is and having a "cautious" method and "risky" method on either side.

But otherwise I like it, might try to figure out how to use it.

[Cluedrew]

:smalltongue: Funnily/ironically enough, looking at Powered by the Apocalypse stuff (which seems almost entirely oriented around narrative) was what made me think of this.It actually makes me think of Blades in the Dark (I believe the generic version is called Foraged in the Dark). Which has "position" as one of the factors going into a roll. Position is one of Controlled, Risky and Desperate. It gives me a similar feel to your approaches of Cautious, Measured and Impetuous. Now it is implemented completely differently, which might actually be a source of inspiration.

Since you seem to be going for a roll by roll thing using position as a resource (you can loose position as a penalty and can spent rolls to improve it). But you could borrow some ideas about how it effects the consequences for failure, by making the cautious approach give strictly worse dice, but reduce the consequences of failure and the impetuous result do the opposite. You might have have a success with consequences system for that to work.

[Jay R]

It's a mathematically interesting idea, but I don't think it would have anything to do with playing a cautious, measured, or impetuous character. I wouldn't make this decision based on personality, and after fiddling with it, I don't think most other gamers would, either.

If I need to get at least an 9, 10, 11, or 12, I should roll 1d12.
If I need to get at least a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, I should roll 3d4.

In a situation in which all results are different, and by the same amount (like weapon damage), I would roll 3d4, which has the highest average.

In a situation in which low rolls are much worse than high rolls are good, I would roll 3d4, to minimize low rolls.
In a situation in which high rolls are much better than low rolls are bad, I would roll a d12, to maximize high rolls.

If a published game used this mechanism, then after the game has been out for a week, every gamer with any knowledge of probability (or who reads the internet for gaming advice) will know how to optimize it.

[KorvinStarmast]

If a published game used this mechanism, then after the game has been out for a week, every gamer with any knowledge of probability (or who reads the internet for gaming advice) will know how to optimize it. I agree. We are starting to put or crew together for Blades in the Dark and the players are pondering which crew special ability will come up most frequently, and as we have not played we have no idea. So we are guessed and we'll see how it works out. Sometimes you only figure it out by playing a bit.

[Quertus]

:smalltongue: Funnily/ironically enough, looking at Powered by the Apocalypse stuff (which seems almost entirely oriented around narrative) was what made me think of this.

Remind my senile self how PbtA handles such.


Well, the 'child haphazardly throwing stuff' is more about the modifier. To be apples to apples the comparison should be something like a cooking competition where one chef prepares the same dishes they prepare every day at their restaurant, and the other chef tries stuff like souffles or highly technical preparations that have a lot of ways they can go wrong but are much more impressive when they go right.

For the programming example, it'd be the difference between e.g. writing maintainable modular code but which has some amount of overhead for things like exception handling or guarding against buffer overflows or namespace collisions or whatnot, versus highly optimized demoscene code that looks like something from the IOCCC but is blazingly fast, except that maybe you've got a good chance there's some exploit or difference in run environment that will make the entire thing come tumbling down. If its like 'this is running on a system 2000x more powerful than it needs to be' then you can be super cautious. If you're trying to make Skyrim work on a graphing calculator, the cautious approach might not get you there and you're going to have to do something hacky to have a chance of making it happen.

Well, this’ll be fun.

For the children making cookies, I was going with “same skill, different approach”. One child is being cautious about making the cookies come out right, the other is being reckless wrt their creation. No need to move my goalposts to the “expert” level. However, if you do, “my mom” recklessly throwing in random ingredients vs “my mom” carefully tasting the stew and tasting and evaluating the effects of small portions of new ingredients (perhaps in small side-batches of the stew?)? I’m still favoring “careful” as more likely to critically succeed.

I have to say,



I would argue for some kind of time element here as a balancing resource.

This is the real difference, not the chance of critically succeeding favoring being reckless.

As far as code goes… eh, it doesn’t matter whether I and a coworker are both aiming for “robust error handling”, or both aiming for “base skeleton”, my code will have the “works” feature. Ever found a bug in a program? I didn’t write the code that caused that bug (ok, fine, with one exception, but that was someone else’s code that I inherited). But most gaming systems don’t represent that concept.

However, it does mean that we arguably have multiple vectors to play with, multiple vectors over which one can be cautious or reckless. Curiously, there are some tasks (like pouring OJ, or dating) that suffer from a cautious approach.

Properly simulating reality in an RPG is hard. :smallsigh:


It actually makes me think of Blades in the Dark (I believe the generic version is called Foraged in the Dark). Which has "position" as one of the factors going into a roll. Position is one of Controlled, Risky and Desperate. It gives me a similar feel to your approaches of Cautious, Measured and Impetuous. Now it is implemented completely differently, which might actually be a source of inspiration.

Since you seem to be going for a roll by roll thing using position as a resource (you can loose position as a penalty and can spent rolls to improve it). But you could borrow some ideas about how it effects the consequences for failure, by making the cautious approach give strictly worse dice, but reduce the consequences of failure and the impetuous result do the opposite. You might have have a success with consequences system for that to work.

Hmmm… the Rogue steps carefully through the room, and so does not activate the trap when they step on the pressure plate, vs… I’m not sure what the advantage to the Rogue recklessly running through the room is, except that it’s faster.

[NichG]

Well, this’ll be fun.

For the children making cookies, I was going with “same skill, different approach”. One child is being cautious about making the cookies come out right, the other is being reckless wrt their creation. No need to move my goalposts to the “expert” level. However, if you do, “my mom” recklessly throwing in random ingredients vs “my mom” carefully tasting the stew and tasting and evaluating the effects of small portions of new ingredients (perhaps in small side-batches of the stew?)? I’m still favoring “careful” as more likely to critically succeed.


I think the chef example had an important element which is getting lost or not transferred over. That is to say, I am assuming we're talking about someone who has already entered into some degree of rote competency, and to me the narrative of being risky is specifically about moving outside of what counts as 'rote'. Perhaps the issue is the specific word 'careful' here as implying 'taking care to do it correctly' rather than the meaning I take to the safe roll as being more like 'doing only what you're confident you know how to do'. So maybe 'cautious' or 'hesistant' would be better words for that roll? In that framing, the children being 'cautious' might for example not put the oven up hot enough to cook the cookies correctly because they've never cooked things at high temperature they're scared of burning the cookies. Or they might not mix the dough thoroughly because they're not sure if overmixing cookie dough is a thing or not.

A good example is salt and seasoning levels in published recipes. Generally these are wrong. So if you just follow recipes by rote you'll get something okay but a bit bland. If you take over control of the salt level yourself, you could have a disaster (because undersalted is edible but uninspiring, but oversalted is inedible), but you could also get a result a bit better than if you just did things by rote.

Now, all of this also depends on whether the recipe is something you'd expect the children to on average be able to successfully complete. If it is, then the hesitant approach will succeed more on average than the risky approach. If on the other hand its a challenging recipe, then I would say the narrative of the hesitant approach is that you're simplifying out the bits you can't fully understand rather than risking doing them wrong. Lets say its a croissant recipe - you've got steps in there like taking an entire block of butter and rolling it out on a slab, then folding it into dough on a certain schedule that lets the dough return to proper temperature so the butter doesn't dissolve in between folds. If you were hesitant about this you might reduce the amount of butter, try a smaller batch size, not roll it out as vigorously as you need to get the proper thickness, etc. You're being careful but specifically in the sense of avoiding those things which are unfamiliar and seem risky. And as a result, the butter just melts out the side in the oven and you get what amounts to over-buttered toast rather than a croissant.

[Martin Greywolf]

All dice rolls are just random numbers generators, so at first glance, pick the one that has the curve closest to what you wanat and call it a day. So far so good, this system of using various curves over a range works just like any other.

But then you need to realize that you need to roll this at the table, with real people who usually don't know math very well. My criticism of this idea comes in two directions.

1) Intuition

If I roll a 1d20, I know that I have a one in twenty odds of rolling a number, and odds of getting X or better are done by addition.

The very second you start to add dice, you loose this. I'm sure that there are people reading this who can instantly compute what odds are for any roll on a 3d8, but they are in an overwhelming minority.

This problem sometimes doesn't matter as much, DnD damage being the best example. Bigger number is better number, calculate the average if you want to get fancy, and you're done. But for odds of success? If I roll a 1d20 and need 18 or better, I know I have 15 percent odds of success right there and a +2 changes those odds to 25%. But how good or bad are my odds when I'm rolling 3d6 and need 15 or better, and how valuable is a +2? (it's 9.26% and +2 gets you 25.93%, if you're wondering)

If you had one system to resolve rolls, like 4d6, your players would eventually get used to how likely certain outcomes are, but if you have multiple curves, each with its own characteristics, you pretty much need to give them probability tables to make good decisions. And that will turn people off, as it should - I like math, but don't necessarily want to run a bunch of calculations thorugh my head every time I roll.

2) Dice variety

Unless you are someone who sells dice at a profit, requiring players to have multiple dice of several types is not good for you. It increases barrier of entry to your game (not that many DnD players are like me and have a dice goblin chest filled with 5 sets of d4,d6,d8,d12,d20) and is just overall a significant hassle to deal with.

There is a very good reason, after all, why most games that require a lot of dice being rolled use the standard d6.

What is the point of it all?

These two issues aren't something insurmountable, but you have to ask yourself - what is the added value that you get in exchange for this increase in complexity and hassle? Is it really worth it? Do you really, really need that kind of fine-tuning instead of giving a flat bonus and calling it a day?

And for some audiences, that might be the case. If you are making a hard scifi TTRPG where you do some kind of Kerbal Space Program style of light orbital calculations anyway, then your audience is unlikely to be deterred by this system. But if you are going for mainstream appeal, you'll have to have one hell of a reason to inflict more purchses and more maths on people.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly it's hard enough getting people to remember what to roll in D&D already! :smalltongue:

I've really got into games like Nobilis and Glitch this year, which are diceless and so more concerned with a cost. This makes me wonder if it might be better to do certainty at a cost. Something like:

No cost: roll 1d20, you're on your own. You could do amazingly, but you could also absolutely fail.
Minor cost: roll 1d12+8. You can't do terribly, but you still have little certainty of being amazing.
Major cost: roll 1d6+14. You're almost certain of winning any opposed contest, but it'll hurt


You could combine this idea with something like Taking 10 if you wanted, letting players use time to downgrade costs

[Notafish]

Honestly it's hard enough getting people to remember what to roll in D&D already! :smalltongue:

For me -and maybe I'm weird- it's not the dice, but the ability modifiers that are hard to remember.

I don't think this is a ready-for-primetime system, but one thing that appeals to me is potentially having a different tactile feel for different actions - in D&D, attacks and knowledge checks literally feel the same (dice pools wouldn't necessarily, but I think most dice pools would vary in feel based on bonuses, not actions).

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the comments that say this is a Gamist, not a Simulationist or Narrativist approach.





I've really got into games like Nobilis and Glitch this year, which are diceless and so more concerned with a cost. This makes me wonder if it might be better to do certainty at a cost. Something like:

No cost: roll 1d20, you're on your own. You could do amazingly, but you could also absolutely fail.
Minor cost: roll 1d12+8. You can't do terribly, but you still have little certainty of being amazing.
Major cost: roll 1d6+14. You're almost certain of winning any opposed contest, but it'll hurt


You could combine this idea with something like Taking 10 if you wanted, letting players use time to downgrade costs

interesting! I like it! :)

[Cluedrew]

Hmmm… the Rogue steps carefully through the room, and so does not activate the trap when they step on the pressure plate, vs... I’m not sure what the advantage to the Rogue recklessly running through the room is, except that it’s faster.How about the cautious rogue puts on heavy boots and gloves that protect them from traps but also interfere with their ability to detect them?

[Quertus]

I think the chef example had an important element which is getting lost or not transferred over. That is to say, I am assuming we're talking about someone who has already entered into some degree of rote competency, and to me the narrative of being risky is specifically about moving outside of what counts as 'rote'. Perhaps the issue is the specific word 'careful' here as implying 'taking care to do it correctly' rather than the meaning I take to the safe roll as being more like 'doing only what you're confident you know how to do'. So maybe 'cautious' or 'hesistant' would be better words for that roll? In that framing, the children being 'cautious' might for example not put the oven up hot enough to cook the cookies correctly because they've never cooked things at high temperature they're scared of burning the cookies. Or they might not mix the dough thoroughly because they're not sure if overmixing cookie dough is a thing or not.

A good example is salt and seasoning levels in published recipes. Generally these are wrong. So if you just follow recipes by rote you'll get something okay but a bit bland. If you take over control of the salt level yourself, you could have a disaster (because undersalted is edible but uninspiring, but oversalted is inedible), but you could also get a result a bit better than if you just did things by rote.

Now, all of this also depends on whether the recipe is something you'd expect the children to on average be able to successfully complete. If it is, then the hesitant approach will succeed more on average than the risky approach. If on the other hand its a challenging recipe, then I would say the narrative of the hesitant approach is that you're simplifying out the bits you can't fully understand rather than risking doing them wrong. Lets say its a croissant recipe - you've got steps in there like taking an entire block of butter and rolling it out on a slab, then folding it into dough on a certain schedule that lets the dough return to proper temperature so the butter doesn't dissolve in between folds. If you were hesitant about this you might reduce the amount of butter, try a smaller batch size, not roll it out as vigorously as you need to get the proper thickness, etc. You're being careful but specifically in the sense of avoiding those things which are unfamiliar and seem risky. And as a result, the butter just melts out the side in the oven and you get what amounts to over-buttered toast rather than a croissant.

Oh wow. If only my mind still worked, this would be so fun to dig into.

So, first, the low-hanging fruit: the chef examine feels like literal goalpost moving; that is, the difference between “careful” and “reckless” is where the character plants their goalposts. And, while that could be an interesting mechanic, 1) or is very much the opposite of what I was evaluating; 2) your “careful” chef is making huge mistakes that do not jive with the results of the system under discussion; 3) really, your “careful” (“hesitant”) chef is getting the “reckless” results… which… really hurts my brain.

Also, it may help to picture it as the same chef, just making the same dish with different attitudes on different days.

Which helps with “some tasks are better performed recklessly”. Which your examples include. But which, while realistic, isn’t (currently) part of the system under discussion.

So, for a task that does not benefit from recklessness, for a task which *on average* sees better results from a cautious approach, why would a reckless approach be statistically more likely to produce the “best” result? Or, to flip that for clarity, given equal sample sizes, why would the best results be statistically more likely to come from the reckless population, for a task that (unlike croissants) does not benefit from recklessness?

I don’t see where this answers that.


How about the cautious rogue puts on heavy boots and gloves that protect them from traps but also interfere with their ability to detect them?

That… does not at all produce “reckless is more likely to critically succeed, careful is incapable of failing badly”.

Wait. Maybe it does? But… hmmm… from the crunch, “cautious” should be less likely to set off the traps, whereas that’s not the impression I get from that fluff.

[NichG]

Oh wow. If only my mind still worked, this would be so fun to dig into.

So, first, the low-hanging fruit: the chef examine feels like literal goalpost moving; that is, the difference between “careful” and “reckless” is where the character plants their goalposts. And, while that could be an interesting mechanic, 1) or is very much the opposite of what I was evaluating; 2) your “careful” chef is making huge mistakes that do not jive with the results of the system under discussion; 3) really, your “careful” (“hesitant”) chef is getting the “reckless” results… which… really hurts my brain.

Also, it may help to picture it as the same chef, just making the same dish with different attitudes on different days.

Which helps with “some tasks are better performed recklessly”. Which your examples include. But which, while realistic, isn’t (currently) part of the system under discussion.

So, for a task that does not benefit from recklessness, for a task which *on average* sees better results from a cautious approach, why would a reckless approach be statistically more likely to produce the “best” result? Or, to flip that for clarity, given equal sample sizes, why would the best results be statistically more likely to come from the reckless population, for a task that (unlike croissants) does not benefit from recklessness?

I don’t see where this answers that.


If we take the word "risky" rather than reckless, I think the only thing you need for it to make sense is for the existing rote method to be imperfect. The cautious approach produces the rote result with regularity, but can't produce better-than-rote. The risky approach could chance upon one of the possible improvements to the rote. Therefore logically the possible ceiling is higher.

I hold as basically realistic that all rote approaches are never perfect, so the overall extremes vs mean trade-off seems quite natural to me, regardless of what specific words you use for those attitudes.

[Quertus]

If we take the word "risky" rather than reckless, I think the only thing you need for it to make sense is for the existing rote method to be imperfect. The cautious approach produces the rote result with regularity, but can't produce better-than-rote. The risky approach could chance upon one of the possible improvements to the rote. Therefore logically the possible ceiling is higher.

I hold as basically realistic that all rote approaches are never perfect, so the overall extremes vs mean trade-off seems quite natural to me, regardless of what specific words you use for those attitudes.

But, by the math of the example, the ceiling is the same. So that doesn’t follow.

Making fluff and crunch and reality match is hard.

[NichG]

But, by the math of the example, the ceiling is the same. So that doesn’t follow.

Making fluff and crunch and reality match is hard.

True, it's only in the asymptotic limit that the ceiling effectively would be lower for rote. But if the probability of the max result differs by a few orders of magnitude, basically you'll stop seeing those max results, even if the probability is technically nonzero.

Not quite the case with 3d4 vs 1d12, granted.

6d6 for cautious vs 1d30+5 for risky maybe? Would you still feel like getting the max result feels like it will ever happen on 6d6?

Maybe even 5d4 vs 1d20 would be enough? Max result on 5d4 is a 1 in 1024 chance.

Anyhow, point would be that the particular choice of dice system is a positive move on this continuum.

[Anonymouswizard]

For me -and maybe I'm weird- it's not the dice, but the ability modifiers that are hard to remember.

I don't think this is a ready-for-primetime system, but one thing that appeals to me is potentially having a different tactile feel for different actions - in D&D, attacks and knowledge checks literally feel the same (dice pools wouldn't necessarily, but I think most dice pools would vary in feel based on bonuses, not actions).

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the comments that say this is a Gamist, not a Simulationist or Narrativist approach.

What's easy to remember will vary from group to group, but in my experience players will look at their sheet, find the modifier, then ask about which diebto roll. The only exception is weapon damage, because that die tends to be on the sheet.

Honestly I really don't think it's worth thinking of narrativism or simulation at this stage. If you want to develop it consider 1) does it give you the feel you want and 2) does it encourage the behaviour you want.


interesting! I like it! :)

I used to be highly against costs as an integral part of games, having grown up on 3.5 where costs were rapidly supplemented away. But these days any system I like beyond 'roll die and add modifier' is built around costs. The idea that you can't run at full power forever, and that if you want to achieve anything you have to pay the price, is really interesting. Cypher is pretty good about it as well with it's Pools and Effort mechanics, as long as you chase Adepts out of your game.

I highly recommend looking at existing systems that play around with probability and cost.

Glitch explicitly notes a few of its design goals, and it's interesting to see. The most interesting* of these is 'conflict goes to the bloodiest survivor', the idea that once enough blows have been landed any engagement will wind down, and without a decisive winner the character who pays the most is the one who gets what they want. It's a very interesting flip to the D&D inspired standard, acquiring costs is never great but it can occasionally be useful.

* That is relevant to this discussion, the most interesting is 'perception is active'.

[Quertus]

'conflict goes to the bloodiest survivor', the idea that once enough blows have been landed any engagement will wind down, and without a decisive winner the character who pays the most is the one who gets what they want.

… what?

How does this make any sense? How does this work in play?

[Anonymouswizard]

… what?

How does this make any sense? How does this work in play?

Roughly: conflicts have a time limit. If nobody's won in that time check how much Cost the PCs have accumulated and compare it to a cost target the GM set earlier. Whichever is bigger wins, if PCs were going against each other whoever took more Cost won.

Yes, it's a very different assumption to what D&D uses, Glitch is a very different game. The system really does fit a game about struggling to find a place in the world where you're just not good at being a functional human. If you don't want to get bloodied you can always run the risk of trying for a decisive victory with less costly actions

[Quertus]

Roughly: conflicts have a time limit. If nobody's won in that time check how much Cost the PCs have accumulated and compare it to a cost target the GM set earlier. Whichever is bigger wins, if PCs were going against each other whoever took more Cost won.

Yes, it's a very different assumption to what D&D uses, Glitch is a very different game. The system really does fit a game about struggling to find a place in the world where you're just not good at being a functional human. If you don't want to get bloodied you can always run the risk of trying for a decisive victory with less costly actions

Bolted for emphasis.

So… does the system assume that everyone is dysfunctional, and thus only makes sense when running “dysfunctional AI”, as why my mind refuses to grok how this resolution mechanics makes sense?

Is this gonna be “<Quertus> has no interest in roleplaying a dysfunctional family / dysfunctional world, and thus will never have interest in this system”, or is the logic of “more bloodied wins” applicable to understanding saner portions of the alien species that surrounds me, as well?

“Great at what it does” is fine and all, but personally I’d rather learn a system that helps me get in touch with my inner genocidal Hitler than do a deep dive into mental illness, or the dysfunctional. Or sit through another Guardians of the Galaxy or Justice League (but I repeat myself).:smalltongue:

[Anonymouswizard]

Bolted for emphasis.

So… does the system assume that everyone is dysfunctional, and thus only makes sense when running “dysfunctional AI”, as why my mind refuses to grok how this resolution mechanics makes sense?

Glitch works under the assumption that as the PCs are essentially natives of the primordial void that existed before creation, and still exists outside and within it, they're just not good at being normal people.

Great at destroying stuff and forcing the world into their story, but that doesn't help with paying the bills on time. Because that's like a third thing to do today, and they've already showered and made toast (the default state for PCs is one part chronic fatigue to one part depression). There's an entire stat that basically governs being a functional member of society, and it's the most expensive.


Is this gonna be “<Quertus> has no interest in roleplaying a dysfunctional family / dysfunctional world, and thus will never have interest in this system”, or is the logic of “more bloodied wins” applicable to understanding saner portions of the alien species that surrounds me, as well?

Conflict arises from two people or groups wanting different things. If the conflict begins to drag on and becomes unfun what's a good way to determine which side gets what they want so you can get back to fun stuff?

In theory you could compare relative strength, but if the conflict isn't resolving quickly it's likely that neither side has an advantage. In which case 'who is still standing and has sacrificed more' is a fine metric to use.


“Great at what it does” is fine and all, but personally I’d rather learn a system that helps me get in touch with my inner genocidal Hitler than do a deep dive into mental illness, or the dysfunctional. Or sit through another Guardians of the Galaxy or Justice League (but I repeat myself).:smalltongue:

You see a system that is good at 'helping you get in touch with your inner genocidal madman' is good at what it does. But I brought up Glitch's design goals because it's very different to what the industry standard aims for.

Victory goes to the bloodiest survivor, therefore the one who struggles the most is the one who ultimately wins. Yes you can go in and theoretically destroy everybody without expending much effort, but that only lasts until your opponents are willing to take the cost of resistance. Therefore the conflict goes from 'ten by ten room, orc, pie' to an expression of desire and persistence.

Ultimately it is a lot more interesting when everybody is standing at the end of a conflict to deal with the fallout and nurse grudges.

[Quertus]

Glitch works under the assumption that as the PCs are essentially natives of the primordial void that existed before creation, and still exists outside and within it, they're just not good at being normal people.

Great at destroying stuff and forcing the world into their story, but that doesn't help with paying the bills on time. Because that's like a third thing to do today, and they've already showered and made toast (the default state for PCs is one part chronic fatigue to one part depression). There's an entire stat that basically governs being a functional member of society, and it's the most expensive.



Conflict arises from two people or groups wanting different things. If the conflict begins to drag on and becomes unfun what's a good way to determine which side gets what they want so you can get back to fun stuff?

In theory you could compare relative strength, but if the conflict isn't resolving quickly it's likely that neither side has an advantage. In which case 'who is still standing and has sacrificed more' is a fine metric to use.



You see a system that is good at 'helping you get in touch with your inner genocidal madman' is good at what it does. But I brought up Glitch's design goals because it's very different to what the industry standard aims for.

Victory goes to the bloodiest survivor, therefore the one who struggles the most is the one who ultimately wins. Yes you can go in and theoretically destroy everybody without expending much effort, but that only lasts until your opponents are willing to take the cost of resistance. Therefore the conflict goes from 'ten by ten room, orc, pie' to an expression of desire and persistence.

Ultimately it is a lot more interesting when everybody is standing at the end of a conflict to deal with the fallout and nurse grudges.

Ok, the premise of Glitch sounds amazing. :smallbiggrin:

I’m just not understanding… I’m not even sure what it is I’m not understanding. :smalleek: I think I’m confused about the meat of the mechanic “ who is still standing and has sacrificed more”? About the logic that says it’s a fine metric to use? About what the psychology of beings that evolved in a world run by that mechanic would logically look like?

While Glitch cleverly bypasses the “this doesn’t sound like it would produce recognizably human beings” by making the protagonists not be human, I’d still want to understand their underlying psychology if I were to try to roleplay one.