Your Favorite Resolution Systems

[Ignimortis]

Dicepools. Single die systems, in my experience, either turn everything into a circus if you cannot outscale the die with bonuses to the point where rolling the minimum value is still some sort of success, or, as consequence of letting you scale, lock people out of trying even simple tasks eventually.

Meanwhile dicepools, usually constructed of things like stat+skill or stat+stat or skill+skill, tend to perform somewhat more reliably. Take a pile of d6, put the TN at 4, count up 1s for the "uh oh" factor.

While speed of resolution is important, it's 2022. Dice rollers exist and mitigate the most issues with dicepools, while they will never fix issues with single die distribution.

[Telok]

Dicepools. Single die systems, in my experience, either turn everything into a circus if you cannot outscale the die with bonuses to the point where rolling the minimum value is still some sort of success, or, as consequence of letting you scale, lock people out of trying even simple tasks eventually.

Meanwhile dicepools, usually constructed of things like stat+skill or stat+stat or skill+skill, tend to perform somewhat more reliably. Take a pile of d6, put the TN at 4, count up 1s for the "uh oh" factor.

While speed of resolution is important, it's 2022. Dice rollers exist and mitigate the most issues with dicepools, while they will never fix issues with single die distribution.

I feel ya. I track some stats on my current D&D character and... last two sessions had six combats totaling 25 turns (not rounds, just my character's turns) of which 18 involved eldrich blast x3, of those 50+ d20 rolls there was one 20. Chap sitting next to me plays a barbarian, missed one session and spent a 5 round combat perma stunned (int save, natch plus missed a turn last fight from a dropped haste spell), got three 20s in two combats of not always raging and only being hasted for about 3 turns.

Its why I like the flat d20 or d100 for comedy & horror. In Paranoia you play hot potato with a grenade because its supposed to chunky salsa someone and the flat math is fast & lol-random no matter how good or bad your character is supposed to be. CoC your 90% dodge & axe skills aren't supposed to let you tank a dozen ghouls even though you're a super-human axe ninja at that rank.

Then you get D&D with Thog the 20th level fighter wearing a belt of giant strength getting pantsed by Bo-Bo the geriatric poo flinging gibbon because d20+13 vs d20-2 gives you 1-3 vs 19-20 = the poo flinger is your world champion wrestler today. Sure its usually a "rare event", but D&D has so many rolls it basically comes up every sesson or two. Makes for great comedy, but not very heroic when some old monkeys take down your "extra strong" fighter.

[Ignimortis]

Its why I like the flat d20 or d100 for comedy & horror. In Paranoia you play hot potato with a grenade because its supposed to chunky salsa someone and the flat math is fast & lol-random no matter how good or bad your character is supposed to be. CoC your 90% dodge & axe skills aren't supposed to let you tank a dozen ghouls even though you're a super-human axe ninja at that rank.

Then you get D&D with Thog the 20th level fighter wearing a belt of giant strength getting pantsed by Bo-Bo the geriatric poo flinging gibbon because d20+13 vs d20-2 gives you 1-3 vs 19-20 = the poo flinger is your world champion wrestler today.

Pretty much, yes. If you want consistent competence (and I tend to play systems where that suits the mood best), dicepools work best. If you want to always be unsure of the roll for either comedy or suspense, single-die might be a lot more conductive to getting the right atmosphere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, I don't notice that. But that's, I think, because I treat the resolution system as only applying when there is meaningful uncertainty about the outcome. I'd never expect a resolution system to handle everything--if the fiction dictates that only one option (or only a small set of options) make sense, I'm not going to ask for a random result at all. Because there isn't uncertainty.

Resolution systems work best when they focus on neutrally picking between acceptable results. If some of the possibly chosen results aren't acceptable fictionally, they should be filtered out before you even get to the mechanical rolling dice level. Dice should be neutral, people don't have to be.

But then I'm very accepting (and welcoming, in fact) of active DM involvement at every stage, including task resolution. What I don't want is the rules demanding that they have priority over the people.

[Notafish]

For generic TTRPG resolution, I like "roll the Target Number or higher" with either a d20 or 3d6, depending on how swingy you want things to be. It's easy to teach and to comprehend (especially if D&D3e+ was your introduction to the hobby), and can be spiced up with crits, fumbles, and degrees of success without needing to introduce a completely new system. When I'm playing or running an RPG, I usually don't want to think too hard about dice probabilities, so familiarity and ease of use is nice for me.

However, my favorite resolution system is Blood Bowl block dice, which is sort of like a dice pool, but with asymmetric dice. Blood Bowl is not really a TTRPG - it's a Games Workshop game that asks, "what if the NFL, but with orks?" The dice determine the outcome of an attempt to hit or throw a block on an opposing character. Depending on match-up (which character is stronger/has more support from teammates), either the aggressor or the defender will choose one die from a pool of between 1 and 3 six-sided dice. In general, the dice have a 1/6 chance of displaying an outcome that is bad for the aggressor, 3/6 chance of a neutral outcome, and a 2/6 chance of the aggressor succeeding. However, character traits can modify the way these outcomes are adjudicated (for example, a character with the "Frenzy" trait treats a roll of 3 or 4 as "push the defender and roll again" while other characters will only push the defender and end their turn). It's a very focused system that would take a lot of work to adapt to other settings, but it works very well in the game for which it was designed, and the rules interactions complicate the game in a lot of fun ways.

[Telok]

See, I don't notice that. But that's, I think, because I treat the resolution system as only applying when there is meaningful uncertainty about the outcome. I'd never expect a resolution system to handle everything--if the fiction dictates that only one option (or only a small set of options) make sense, I'm not going to ask for a random result at all. Because there isn't uncertainty.

Really in D&D its only mostly noticable when you track actual data instead of relying on memory & chatter, or with less experienced DMs who think the rules should be used. Having played with DMs who truely had bad math (Mr. "three 30% chances equal one 90% certainty" was a memorable one), didn't know/think they knew better than the devs, or aren't sure enough of their storytelling ability to ignore the rules, its pretty ugly when they trust the game to just work and it keeps giving them jank.

Personally tho, if I'm running something that I need to regularly override the rules to keep it working I'll start wondering why I'm not using something less failure prone. Maybe something light & fast to the point of infalliability like Lasers & Feelings or such. Of course if I could find enough Zelazny fans in one place I'd have to shell out for a copy of Amber Diceless too.

[Firest Kathon]

The German RPG The Dark Eye handles things that way - combat actions are solved with a realtively simple, D20-roll under system, while skill tests are used with 3 d20, compared to three stats. However, last time I checked, that was a big, very cumbersome system with a lot of moving parts, options and modifiers.

The 5th version of The Dark Eye simplifies things a lot. Rules are available or free in German and in English. The resolution rules are available here. Abbreviated: Attributes range usually from 5-18 (more extreme values are possible), you roll 3d20 under three attributes. Ability points are used to compensate for rolling over the target number. 0 or more points remaining mean success, number of remaining points determines the quality if needed.

What I really like about that system is that each check depends on (up to) three attributes. So even if my character is not particularly strong, I could still be good a athletics checks because they also depend on Courage and Dexterity in addition to Strength. And you can easily replace some attributes to run e.g. a check for knowledge about athletics with Int, Int, Sag instead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Really in D&D its only mostly noticable when you track actual data instead of relying on memory & chatter, or with less experienced DMs who think the rules should be used. Having played with DMs who truely had bad math (Mr. "three 30% chances equal one 90% certainty" was a memorable one), didn't know/think they knew better than the devs, or aren't sure enough of their storytelling ability to ignore the rules, its pretty ugly when they trust the game to just work and it keeps giving them jank.

Personally tho, if I'm running something that I need to regularly override the rules to keep it working I'll start wondering why I'm not using something less failure prone. Maybe something light & fast to the point of infalliability like Lasers & Feelings or such. Of course if I could find enough Zelazny fans in one place I'd have to shell out for a copy of Amber Diceless too.

It's not overriding the rules to use them exactly when they say they're supposed to be used and not when they're not. And those DMs? Weren't actually using the rules. Because the rules explicitly point out that you shouldn't ask them to do things they weren't designed for. Which is what they were doing in rolling for everything.

Personally, I don't see rules as some kind of simulation engine (given the current state, what is the next state). Rules are there as tools to be asked specific questions smaller than the totality of the next state given a state of equilibrium (of options A and B, both of which are acceptable, which one happens?). So I'm really only interested in the places of the probability curve where things are basically flat anyway--the ends of the curve aren't the job of the rules at all. Rules are not the masters, where overriding them is a special thing. They're passive tools that wait until they're called on. And knowing when not to call on rules is just as important.

If I wanted to play a game where the rules were in the driving seat, well, there are lots of board games and computer games that scratch that itch. I play TTRPGs for the human element, for the human to be in the drivers' seat. For me, free-form is the default and ideal, and rules are there to help lessen the load of free-form (at the cost of narrowing the field when they're used).

[Telok]

It's not overriding the rules to use them exactly when they say they're supposed to be used and not when they're not. And those DMs? Weren't actually using the rules. Because the rules explicitly point out that you shouldn't ask them to do things they weren't designed for. Which is what they were doing in rolling for everything.

See, you keep saying that all the 5e DMs I've ever seen are playing the game wrong by trying to follow the rules as they understand them. Either you or they are: 1. Reading different sets of books, or 2. Getting totally different messages from them. Although, now that I think about it, you could be referencing information sources & advice that they don't (they just stuck to the books without hitting up the net & non-WotC publications), and you certainly seem to have a better intuitive grasp of iterative probability calculations.

But either way it doesn't change my perception or experience that dice systems of basically straight dice with flat probabilities and binary results are best suited to comedy & horror genera based on the style of outcomes where the randomness of the die overpowers player choices. That informs my preference for bell curve result dice systems for games ouside of comedy, horror, & ultralight. Your comment isn't about the flat d20 plus assorted other random effect dice being a better or faster dice system, but about people not playing D&D like you want them to.

[Easy e]

I am a big fan of dice pools, but especially depleting dice pools, where you have to decide how many to use at X time, or be caught out without enough dice in a pool later.

Plus, they help make the game more "success" focused and less failure prone.

[Marcloure]

I really like Ironsworn's dice system: you roll d6+stat and compare with 2d10. If your d6+stat roll is above both d10 results, it's a success. Between the results is a partial success, below them is a failure. Lastly, if both d10 rolled the same number, then that action is a critical or fumble depending on whether you succeed or fail.

[Tanarii]

See, you keep saying that all the 5e DMs I've ever seen are playing the game wrong by trying to follow the rules as they understand them. Either you or they are: 1. Reading different sets of books, or 2. Getting totally different messages from them. Although, now that I think about it, you could be referencing information sources & advice that they don't (they just stuck to the books without hitting up the net & non-WotC publications), and you certainly seem to have a better intuitive grasp of iterative probability calculations.

My experience has been is many if not most 5e DMs don't read Chapter 8 of the DMG, which very clearly states you shouldn't roll for everything right at the beginning of the section on ability checks, that you should ask if something cannot fail or succeed before calling for a roll.

As far as I'm concerned that chapter is required reading for anyone wanting to be a 5e DM and should have been Chapter 1. Because I've experienced far too many DMs trying to run the game 3e style, roll for everything even when they think it should automatically succeed or fail. Especially in the early days of 5e.

[Telok]

My experience has been is many if not most 5e DMs don't read Chapter 8 of the DMG, which very clearly states you shouldn't roll for everything right at the beginning of the section on ability checks, that you should ask if something cannot fail or succeed before calling for a roll.

As far as I'm concerned that chapter is required reading for anyone wanting to be a 5e DM and should have been Chapter 1. Because I've experienced far too many DMs trying to run the game 3e style, roll for everything even when they think it should automatically succeed or fail. Especially in the early days of 5e.

I'm sure that's nice for DMs who know they want PCs to autosucceed or autofail at something. The newer D&D 5e DMs I've seen have read the whole DMG and have not DMed D&D 3.x or 4e. Its not that they can't read, but that they don't know if they should fiat the PCs succeeding or failing practically everything out of combat. After all, rolling for everything and following DCs printed in the adventures works great in combat so it should be fine out of combat too, right? Or are they getting a different message from what they read than you did?

I think D&D 5e is really two different games in & out of combat. But the books don't really seem to say that and the big, high visibility, character abilities like spells & checks work the same on both sides. So the DMs get big chunks of time, rules, and mind space given over to the "roll for everything each time" combat game, then they try to use that experience & knowledge in the rest of the game. But that's not about the resolution or dice system, its more about the game having two modes that play super differently and not reaaly spelling it out in detail.

[Satinavian]

It is not that people don't understand autofail and autosuccess. It is more that newcomers don't really understand how horrible the D&D skill system is as alternative.
Then there is also the fact that it feels quite unfair to have some characters autosucceed and others autofail at the same thing, so most of those instances tend to get rolled.

[ngilop]

I always thought Alternity's resolution system is the best.

You have a base D20 that you roll and that is modified by skill, circumstances, gear, etc etc the following way –d20 –d12 –d8 –d6 –d4 +d0 +d4 +d6 +d8 +d12 +d20 +2d20 +3d20.


I am thinking of designing a similar system Except its the base d20 and you add or subtract a number of D6s to that.

[Telok]

I am thinking of designing a similar system Except its the base d20 and you add or subtract a number of D6s to that.

I suggested something similar for d&d 5e in our group at one point, but replacing the d20 with 3d6 and +/- d6s for anything modifying. Stacking adv/disad, buffs, etc., all +/- 1d6 each and a d6 per 2-3 points of flat bonuses. Everyone agreed it would be simpler and possibly faster but they are seriously wedded to the roll20 plugin despite their constant complaining.