Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Great analysis,Hugh.

 

One other area where Hero's 3d6 Skills system really shines is when you get into 18- or better Skill rolls. While an 18- Skill roll makes one "one of the greatest masters of the Skill in history," it is possible to go even higher in Hero and enter the realm of legend. While this level of competence doesn't reduce the 0.46% chance of rolling the always-fails 18, it does make routine penalties for difficulty or reduced time present a lot less of a problem for practitioners of the Skill at this level. And 20- or better Skill rolls are fairly common in Champions games.

 

Let's take my own Champions PC Zl'f as an example. With a 22- Acrobatics roll (before Levels), she can make even 17- Olympic-class gymnasts gape in awe. Assign her a -5 "Sheer Folly" to an intended maneuver and she still has a 17-, or 99.5% chance of success. Even if an incredibly difficult Acrobatics maneuver is assigned a "That's impossible!" penalty of -10, if she applies her 2 Overall Levels (24-; -10 = 14-) she still gets a 90.7% chance of succeeding. She'd take those odds to save the world or a teammate.

 

How would a d20 system reflect this capability of Hero? Could it reflect it? Five "levels" above 95% success in 1d20 gets you a theoretical 120%, but you still have an automatic 5% chance of failure even for completely routine or simple tasks. And with a -5 penalty you're right back down to the 95% chance. And a -10 puts you down to only 70% chance of success. My problem with 1d20 as a Skill roll system comes primarily because it lacks enough granularity, and worse each step up or down is always the same amount. I think a 5% probability to always fail or always succeed is too much.

 

In short, Hero's 3d6 Skill system is not one of its flaws; but rather one of its greatest strengths.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

My problem with 1d20 as a Skill roll system comes primarily because it lacks enough granularity' date=' and worse each step up or down is always the same amount. I think a 5% probability to always fail or always succeed is too much.[/quote']

 

So change it. Make it such that when you roll a 1 or 20, you roll again, and if it comes up a 19 or 20, you auto-fail or succeed, otherwise it just counts as what was originally rolled. Now it's a 1 in 200 chance of auto-failure, which is almost exactly as much as an 18 on 3d6.

 

You talk about granularity... d20 has far MORE granularity than 3d6. +1 in 3d6 is often over +10%. In d20 it's +5%. In 3d6, -5 is "sheer folly".. there's only 5 levels of difficulty between "slightly difficult" and sheer folly... in d20 it would be more like 10 levels of difficulty to achieve the same change. That's granularity.

 

As for routine skill failing 5%... they don't. On routine tasks in d20, you can take 10 and get the average... every single time. A journeyman blacksmith never fails to make a horseshoe, and an expert blacksmith never fails to create a pretty nice sword. There's no equivalent in Hero. A journeyman blacksmith fails to create a horseshoe 38% of the time... which is horribly unrealistic. If he wants, he could take extra time, but his expert blacksmith mentor is going to get on his *** for his slow work on such a simple job, and he'd still have a 10 or 5% chance of failure.

 

-Nate

[aylwin13]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

As for routine skill failing 5%... they don't. On routine tasks in d20, you can take 10 and get the average... every single time. A journeyman blacksmith never fails to make a horseshoe, and an expert blacksmith never fails to create a pretty nice sword. There's no equivalent in Hero. A journeyman blacksmith fails to create a horseshoe 38% of the time... which is horribly unrealistic. If he wants, he could take extra time, but his expert blacksmith mentor is going to get on his *** for his slow work on such a simple job, and he'd still have a 10 or 5% chance of failure.

 

-Nate

Just wanted to throw in a quick point that no one has mentioned (or perhaps everyone has just overlooked): Where "routine" tasks are concerned skill rolls shouldn't even be made, unless you're in a "combat" (rushed) situation. In this type of situation, even the best at something can oops on occasion. If the character is just doing his job, on a routine task, don't make a roll. Just as with PER rolls, if you're out of combat and the thing is in plain sight there is no roll. You just see it. Same with routine tasks in the characters everyday life.

 

Just my .02

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

So change it. Make it such that when you roll a 1 or 20, you roll again, and if it comes up a 19 or 20, you auto-fail or succeed, otherwise it just counts as what was originally rolled. Now it's a 1 in 200 chance of auto-failure, which is almost exactly as much as an 18 on 3d6.

 

You talk about granularity... d20 has far MORE granularity than 3d6. +1 in 3d6 is often over +10%. In d20 it's +5%. In 3d6, -5 is "sheer folly".. there's only 5 levels of difficulty between "slightly difficult" and sheer folly... in d20 it would be more like 10 levels of difficulty to achieve the same change. That's granularity.

 

As for routine skill failing 5%... they don't. On routine tasks in d20, you can take 10 and get the average... every single time. A journeyman blacksmith never fails to make a horseshoe, and an expert blacksmith never fails to create a pretty nice sword. There's no equivalent in Hero. A journeyman blacksmith fails to create a horseshoe 38% of the time... which. is horribly unrealistic. If he wants, he could take extra time, but his expert blacksmith mentor is going to get on his *** for his slow work on such a simple job, and he'd still have a 10 or 5% chance of failure.

You're missing my entire point: The distribution of results in Hero's 3d6 system far more closely represents the way skills are developed in the real word. With 3d6, as you improve, each increment of improvement gets smaller and smaller, until the difference between a 16- and a 17- is only 1.4%. Your 95% 3d6 master has a 5% chance to fail anything; 10.8 times the failure rate of an 17- master in Hero (0.46%). Our masters are better than yours.

 

For what it's worth, no Hero GM I'm aware of rolls for failure on "routine" tasks. We don't have our characters rolling Acrobatics or Breakfall every morning to see if they successfully make it down the stairs for breakfast. There's no point to it unless it has some effect on the story. And that failed horseshoe may not represent a bad horseshoe itself; it might also represent a poor installation or a bad nail used to fasten the horseshoe. It's relevant only if the adventure requires a horseshoe to fail/not fail.

 

You like 1d20, fine. Use it in your own campaign. It offers a few minor advantages, such as ease of calculation, for those to whom 3d6 is too complicated or irregular. But the bell curve of 3d6 is far more realistic than the flat curve of 1d20 in representing the way real people become experts. I see no reason to restructure the entire methodology for Hero Skills for an option that offers no significant benefits, and several disadvantages.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

don't forget you can simulate quite closely

the "take ten or take twenty" rule

with the time chart

Extra time can mean extra plusses,

and extra plusses can make the routine into high quality.

 

(thanks again to the ones who schooled me on that)

[Kristopher]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

So change it. Make it such that when you roll a 1 or 20, you roll again, and if it comes up a 19 or 20, you auto-fail or succeed, otherwise it just counts as what was originally rolled. Now it's a 1 in 200 chance of auto-failure, which is almost exactly as much as an 18 on 3d6.

 

You talk about granularity... d20 has far MORE granularity than 3d6. +1 in 3d6 is often over +10%. In d20 it's +5%. In 3d6, -5 is "sheer folly".. there's only 5 levels of difficulty between "slightly difficult" and sheer folly... in d20 it would be more like 10 levels of difficulty to achieve the same change. That's granularity.

 

As for routine skill failing 5%... they don't. On routine tasks in d20, you can take 10 and get the average... every single time. A journeyman blacksmith never fails to make a horseshoe, and an expert blacksmith never fails to create a pretty nice sword.

 

This sounds more like you're trying to convince someone to play d20, really. Which is fine. As long as d20 doesn't seep into HERO.

 

There's no equivalent in Hero. A journeyman blacksmith fails to create a horseshoe 38% of the time... which is horribly unrealistic. If he wants, he could take extra time, but his expert blacksmith mentor is going to get on his *** for his slow work on such a simple job, and he'd still have a 10 or 5% chance of failure.

 

The GM can always simply rule that a task is within a character's capability, and simply say to the player "don't roll an 18". It's not as if the blacksmith really has to roll for every hourseshoe.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

As for routine skill failing 5%... they don't. On routine tasks in d20, you can take 10 and get the average... every single time. A journeyman blacksmith never fails to make a horseshoe, and an expert blacksmith never fails to create a pretty nice sword. There's no equivalent in Hero.

 

Well now you're just being silly.

 

Taking 10= "When you are not in a rush and not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10 (an average roll on a d20). For many relatively routine tasks, taking 10 results in a success."

 

Taking 20 = "When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round), ans when the skill being attempted carries no penalty, you can take 20. Taking 20 represents you making multiple rolls, assuming that eventually you will roll a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate the result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20 means you keep trying until you get it right. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check."

 

Boy, both of those sure sound like "taking extra time" to me...

 

[Warp9]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

You still haven't dealt with my question about the 4 OCV Bank Robber VS the 10 DCV SpiderMan.

 

While I'm waiting for that, I would like clairification on something else.

 

As I look back at some of your previous statements, they seem to be contradictory (at least to me).

 

In the 1st and 2nd quote (below) you seem to be saying that you have a problem with cases where combat abilities vary greatly, but in the 3rd quote you seem be be saying that it is the small differences which are the problem. Could you please explain this apparent contradiction?

 

What if one were to apply the same logic to hero? Instead of rolling attacks, skill rolls, etc with 3d6, use 1d20. I think that, especially for superheroic campaigns, it would make widely varying abilities less of a problem. For example, say Kung Foo Guy has an OCV of 13, and Brick Guy a DCV of 8. Using 3d6, KFG is almost guaranteed to hit every time... only a 17 or 18 misses, amounting to a measely 2% chance of missing. Now do the same thing except now use 1d20. 17-20 miss, making it a 20% miss chance, which is much more reasonable, given that its only a 5 point difference in CVs, which is not unusual given superheroic characters.

but I really do think it would make for a more balanced game (at least for superheroic campaigns.... heroic campaigns where OCVs and DCVs vary so much less, the 3d6 method is probably fine).

Like I pointed out above, spiderman ain't getting hit unless the bank robber get crazy lucky. And as I've been saying, it's not large differences in skill that bother me, it's the small ones. It's BankRobber Vs. SecurityGuard that bothers me.

 

The 3rd statement just doesn't seem to match with the 1st and 2nd statements.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

3D6 Bell-Curve: Good!

 

1D20: Bad!

 

Thats all I have to say on the matter.

[McCoy]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

3D6 Bell-Curve: Good!

 

1D20: Bad!

 

Thats all I have to say on the matter.

How about "Bell curve rules, flat curve drools"?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

How about "Bell curve rules' date=' flat curve drools"?[/quote']

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

For what it's worth' date=' no Hero GM I'm aware of rolls for failure on "routine" tasks. We don't have our characters rolling Acrobatics or Breakfall every morning to see if they successfully make it down the stairs for breakfast. There's no point to it unless it has some effect on the story. And that failed horseshoe may not represent a bad horseshoe itself; it might also represent a poor installation or a bad nail used to fasten the horseshoe. It's relevant only if the adventure requires a horseshoe to fail/not fail.[/quote']I might, under certain circumstances, have the players make a roll for something mundane. But something simple gets a bonus depending on how mundane of a task it is. And if it is an important task (such as, for example, making a horseshoe for a Prince) the player is likely to take longer to get an additional bonus. So that 11- Roll is given a base +3 and extra time for a +1 making it a 15- for something routine but important.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

After all is said and done, I like d20 for what it is, and what it does. I like the feats system, and the skill system.

 

I love HERO for what it does as well: give us the best Supers Roleplaying System I've found in my 16+ years of gaming

 

Thanks Hero.

 

and thanks d20.

 

Kraig...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I might' date=' under certain circumstances, have the players make a roll for something mundane. But something simple gets a bonus depending on how mundane of a task it is. And if it is an important task (such as, for example, making a horseshoe for a Prince) the player is likely to take longer to get an additional bonus. So that 11- Roll is given a base +3 and extra time for a +1 making it a 15- for something routine but important.[/quote']Oh, sure, undermine my argument!

 

In all truth, though, shoeing the prince's horse would hardly be routine to most blacksmiths. Unlike blowing the blacksmithing roll on Piers Plowman's old plowhorse Dobbins, screwing up the shoeing of the prince's favorite warhorse could have nasty repercussions for the character. (Imagine if the prince loses a crucial battle because his horse's new shoes came off at an inopportune moment!) Hence, that's going to be a significant and not a routine use of the Skill, and would possibly rate an actual roll. If you screw up Piers Plowman's horseshoeing, he just gets pissed and you reshoe the beast at your leisure. Whereas Prince Humperdink might have you thrown in the Pit of Despair or "volunteered" for his latest invasion of Gilder.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

GM: Roll your Blacksmithing Roll to see if you make the prince's horseshoes.

Player: I failed by 1.

GM: You put the shoe on the horse and the prince rides off. A month goes by and then you learn that the prince lost his arm when his horse buckled from a broken shoe. Please add Hunted: Prince Humperdink to your character sheet.

Player: But I only failed the roll by 1!

GM: Hey, don't blame me, you wanted to play by the d20 skill rolling system.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

 

I love HERO for what it does as well: give us the best Supers Roleplaying System I've found in my 16+ years of gaming

 

 

I love HERO for far more than Supers. I think it does Fantasy better than D20.

 

Of course, thats because my idea of cinematic combat meshes much closer with HERO's combat system than D20's, but thats simply a matter of personal taste.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

GM: Roll your Blacksmithing Roll to see if you make the prince's horseshoes.

Player: I failed by 1.

GM: You put the shoe on the horse and the prince rides off. A month goes by and then you learn that the prince lost his arm when his horse buckled from a broken shoe. Please add Hunted: Prince Humperdink to your character sheet.

Player: But I only failed the roll by 1!

GM: Hey, don't blame me, you wanted to play by the d20 skill rolling system.

[Basil]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Hmmm.

 

There's a point The Souljourner made that caught my attention. Using my own words here: with 3d6, in any one particular roll the situational modifiers (e.g., taking more time, bad lighting, etc.) have a non-linear effect. I.e., adding +1 to a 12- roll is less effective than adding +1 to an 8- roll, but more effective than adding +1 to a 14- roll. This does seem a little odd, when you think about it.

 

However, the bell curve does do a good job of modelling how in RL most people learn most things: getting started is hard, improving moderate knowledge is easier, but achieving full mastery is hard once more. Thus, the amount of improvement increasing your base roll by 1 goes well with a bell curve. Also, it is true that in a number of RL situations, a linear increase in "effort" (for lack of a more general term) does not always have a linear effect on the likely results.

 

Seems to me you (generic usage) have to decide which works better for what you want. I do know I'd hate to have to try and rework Hero to use a d20 (or any other flat curve); I suspect it would need (A) intense study, ( deep and prolonged thought and © most important, a hell of a lot of play testing. Still, The Souljourner, if you want to try it, go ahead. I'd be interested to hear how it goes.

 

 

Oh, an idea I had, that might combine the best of both methods: do the "stat" side of things as at present (buying +1 increases the 3d6 roll amount), but in play, replace the usual number by its probability (to, say, 4 or 5 decimal places), and use +/-.05 (or so) as the base level of situational modifiers. That is, some with a Familiarity would, on his character sheet, have "8-", but in play would base rolls on .25926, and would receive, e.g., +.05 for taking extra time, but -.1 for bad conditions, and would be trying to roll .20926 or lower. Also, a natural .99538 or higher is always a miss (coresponding to rolling higher than a 17). Of course, this requires buying a bunch of d10's, but...

 

OK, so it's a weird idea. Like I said, I'm trying to combine the best of both systems. Perhaps someone can refine my idea?

[The Souljourner]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

You still haven't dealt with my question about the 4 OCV Bank Robber VS the 10 DCV SpiderMan.

 

Yeah... after this extensive discussion, I will admit that you can't convert from 3d6 to 1d20 simply by rolling one die instead of the others. Changing to a d20 about doubles the resolution of the die roll without changing the resolution of combat values, and thus you get a bank robber hitting spidey 25% of the time, which I agree is not the way things should be.

 

While I'm waiting for that, I would like clairification on something else.

 

As I look back at some of your previous statements, they seem to be contradictory (at least to me).

 

In the 1st and 2nd quote (below) you seem to be saying that you have a problem with cases where combat abilities vary greatly, but in the 3rd quote you seem be be saying that it is the small differences which are the problem. Could you please explain this apparent contradiction?

 

The 3rd statement just doesn't seem to match with the 1st and 2nd statements.

 

No, you're absolutely right... as the discussion has progressed, my understanding of how 3d6 and d20 compare progressed as well, and some original assumptions I had made turned out to be wrong.

 

Originally, +5 CV over your opponent didn't seem to be that big of a difference to me... after all, you can buy that in skill levels for a mere 10 points with a single attack (and who needs more than one when you have +5 to hit with it?). However, after hearing the rest of you guys talking about it, I realized that's supposed to be a huge difference in Hero, and thus should be causing the huge swings in probability.

 

As I was coming to understand that, I had a chance to really dive into the probabilities, and noticed what happens with very small differences in skill.

 

Here's my revised position on 3d6 vs. 1d20:

 

I like the bell curve provided by 3d6, and appreciate that it makes truly spectacular failure and success as rare as it should be. However, I don't like the resolution it provides for roll modifiers. Using 3d6 means that most modifiers (and differences in skill) should be between 1-5, with 5 being an almost insurmountable advantage, and +1 being a fairly significant advantage.

 

I suggested d20 because it has a higher resolution than 3d6... +1 is 5% instead of up to 12%. However, its resolution comes at a price - randomness. The maximum value comes up 10 times as often as the maximum value of 3d6. Two successive rolls are likely to have wildly different results...

 

So I don't know that there is a solution to the problem that doesn't cause problems of its own, if you even think there's a problem in the first place.

 

All of this has brought me one question.... why don't more people take a ton of combat levels? Heck, for 10 points you get +5 OCV with one attack.... screw an extra 2d6 on your EB, spend the points on combat levels and you'll pretty much never miss.

 

-Nate

[McCoy]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I do not think having a 4 OCV Bank Robber hit SpiderMan 20% of the time is acceptable.

 

Are you saying that the 1d20 method would not result in Spider-Man getting hit 20% of the time? Or are you saying that you think Spider-Man should get hit 20% of the time by the 4 OCV Bank Robber?

I guess that's what it comes down to.

 

I've never actually counted the die rolls in a gaming session, but if memory serves we get about one 3 and one 18 per session. That would indicate an average of about 200 die rolls per session. The 3's and 18's are real cause for comment, and have been know to turn the tide of a combat. Somehow I don't think ten 1's and ten 20's would have the same effect.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

There's a point The Souljourner made that caught my attention. Using my own words here: with 3d6' date=' in any one particular roll the situational modifiers (e.g., taking more time, bad lighting, etc.) have a non-linear effect. I.e., adding +1 to a 12- roll is less effective than adding +1 to an 8- roll, but more effective than adding +1 to a 14- roll. This does seem a little odd, when you think about it.[/quote']

 

Ahh, I'm glad at least one person thought I made at least one good point. You've spared me utter humiliation. Ok.. well, maybe not... but it did make me feel a little better

 

However, the bell curve does do a good job of modelling how in RL most people learn most things: getting started is hard, improving moderate knowledge is easier, but achieving full mastery is hard once more. Thus, the amount of improvement increasing your base roll by 1 goes well with a bell curve. Also, it is true that in a number of RL situations, a linear increase in "effort" (for lack of a more general term) does not always have a linear effect on the likely results.

 

Seems to me you (generic usage) have to decide which works better for what you want. I do know I'd hate to have to try and rework Hero to use a d20 (or any other flat curve); I suspect it would need (A) intense study, ( deep and prolonged thought and © most important, a hell of a lot of play testing. Still, The Souljourner, if you want to try it, go ahead. I'd be interested to hear how it goes.

 

I agree 100%... and I would not want to be the one trying to rework it.

 

Oh, an idea I had, that might combine the best of both methods: do the "stat" side of things as at present (buying +1 increases the 3d6 roll amount), but in play, replace the usual number by its probability (to, say, 4 or 5 decimal places), and use +/-.05 (or so) as the base level of situational modifiers. That is, some with a Familiarity would, on his character sheet, have "8-", but in play would base rolls on .25926, and would receive, e.g., +.05 for taking extra time, but -.1 for bad conditions, and would be trying to roll .20926 or lower. Also, a natural .99538 or higher is always a miss (coresponding to rolling higher than a 17). Of course, this requires buying a bunch of d10's, but...

 

OK, so it's a weird idea. Like I said, I'm trying to combine the best of both systems. Perhaps someone can refine my idea?

 

That is a very cool idea.

 

Your skill determines your base percentage of success... and then modifiers (as a percentile) are applied to that percentage. Thus, let's say two people were trying to climb a wall. One has climb 11- and one has climb 17-. The 11- is going to succeed 62% of the time on an "average" wall. The 17- succeeds 99% of the time. But that's on an average wall... let's assume this is a particularly slippery wall, and thus applies a 25% penalty to climb checks. Now the 11- guy has only a 37% chance to succeed, and the 17- guy 74%. I like that. (in comparison, if you just call it a -3 to climb checks, the 11- guy drops to 25% and the 17- guy only drops to 90%).

 

-Nate

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

I've heard someone else make the d100 suggestion a long time back; I don't remember where-- a Con or something, I believe.

 

It's interesting, but I still come back to the Bell Curve, and what I have always thought it represented. Without re-hashing the entire thing, let's just concede for a moment that the middle of the curve represents the mean skill level found in the campaign world for those who are competent or even 'pretty good' at what they do. Each increment above that represents a smaller gain, percentage-wise, but it still represents a gain, an ability increased above the 'normally seen' level of that skill.

 

In the example above, it makes sense to me that they 17- guy -- the guy on world-class end of the skill, would be far less affected by an obstacle that proved a considerable impediment to the 11- guy-- the guy who's just gotten into the groove of the curve; the guy who is 'pretty good.'

 

Now if you went to a percentile system, you are accepting that the world-class guy would have just as much trouble (say 15% reduction) as the guy who knows just enough to make a living at it. I just can't accept that such a thing is accurate. There are too many real-world examples from every field of endeavor. That's why novices ask professionals when they get stuck: it's not such a big deal for the pro; he's learned a few tricks and can more easily cope/work around it.

 

Again, it's just the way I've always thought it was _supposed_ to work, and I've always felt that it was an accurate representation of how such things really _do_ work. If you feel that something else is going to work better for your group, then by all means, at least give it a try. I know good and well I've got my own set of House Rules, and I'd be willing to be that the bulk of the folks on this board do, too! :wink:

 

Duke

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Without getting too much into the non-game aspect of the bell system, let me discuss briefly, a bit about the bell curve.

 

The bell curve, at least as we are refering to it is the central limit theorm variation of the normal distribution algorithm. Bell curve, in this context was popularized as a descriptor by psycholigists debating the displacement of intelligence.

 

A bell curve states that 68% of all people fall within one standard deviation from the center of the curve. 95% of all people should fall within two standard deviations from the center of the curve. And finally 99% of all people should fall within three standard devitions from the center of the curve.

 

So for a true system that represents modern life you would look at it like this:

Extremely Simple: Only 0.1% should fail at this task.

Very Simple: 2.3% should fail at this task

Simple: 15.9% should fail at this task

Normal: 50% should fail at this task

Hard: 84.1% should fail at this task

Very Hard: 97.7% should fail at this task.

Extremely Hard: 99.9% should fail at this task.

Impossible: No one should fail at this task.

 

Now, this means for a game system to be accurate you would need to have a bell curve but because not all skills are something that can be done by anyone you would need to have examples for each skill indicating what qualifies as simple, hard, normal, etc for each skill. Then, as long as you are using a system that creates a bell curve (3d10, 4d6, whatever) than you have a system that represents real life fairly accurately.

 

If you look into the learning curve principle, you can also see that the bell curve is supported in this. The human mind forgets things. As a result you have to relearn some information. Each time you learn something you retain it faster and are less likely to lose it. This can be compared to the current theory of how the brain stores information from binding neurological pathways. The more pathways established, the faster you can recall the information. With a linear system you need A before you can get to B and B before you can get to C. The neurological pathway system gives you multiple paths to reach a point. It is exponential only until it reachs a point when it needs a specific node (A, B, C, D, etc). In this case if you don't know the specific detail, you obviously cannot do the specific task. You can, at best, rely on the information you do have and make what one would call an educated guess.

 

It, to me, seems to be that the bell curve system for dice rolls fits well. The higher the roll (up until about 15- / 16-) you are just relearning information and learning specific information. Then, beyond that point you are only learning finer details to the skill so that if a very specific circumstance comes up, you are capable of handling it.

 

From a Psychological and Neurological standpoint, the bell curve system makes sense. But the size of the die only adds flavor.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

Yeah... after this extensive discussion' date=' I will admit that you can't convert from 3d6 to 1d20 simply by rolling one die instead of the others. Changing to a d20 about doubles the resolution of the die roll without changing the resolution of combat values, and thus you get a bank robber hitting spidey 25% of the time, which I agree is not the way things should be.[/quote']

 

As I said, we used to play with the d20 instead of the 3D6, and it ended up driving OCV and Skills right through the roof. I mean, it worked, just not as HERO is really intended...

 

All of this has brought me one question.... why don't more people take a ton of combat levels? Heck, for 10 points you get +5 OCV with one attack.... screw an extra 2d6 on your EB, spend the points on combat levels and you'll pretty much never miss.

 

-Nate

 

Well, there is the point of whether that actually fits the concept of the character, and whether the GM would allow it or not. I mean, just because Spidey always wants to hit with his webshooters doesn't mean he actually has a +5OCV with them... that represents a LOT of training... professional sniper level type stuff. So with Spidey, he'll probably have a couple overall combat levels to show that he's been around 30 years [and barely aged a day!], but it's his DEX that really carries him through combat.

 

And yes, he probably beats most people's CV by a significant amount. It's rare that he ever gets hit, and rare that he ever misses.

 

The other thing is that if you do it, the GM will try to balance that out with the NPCs. Generally speaking you don't want more than a +/-4CV difference between combatants. As you point out, it gets boring if you always hit or always miss.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6?

 

All of this has brought me one question.... why don't more people take a ton of combat levels? Heck' date=' for 10 points you get +5 OCV with one attack.... screw an extra 2d6 on your EB, spend the points on combat levels and you'll pretty much never miss.[/quote']The main reason is that it would lead to OCV inflation within the campaign. If every character took +5 to their OCV, then everyone else would up their DCV and/or defenses correspondingly and you'd be, relatively speaking, right back where you started. A second reason is character concept. Not every hero is seen by his or her player as an expert shot (In fact I know skilled players who consider their characters novices, and run them accordingly). That's part of the fun of role-playing.

 

I should note here that I'm not wed to 3d6; I'm wed to the bell curve. A 5d6 or 6d6 method would probably work too, but it would change the probabilities of success markedly and +1 would have a whole different meaning within the context of a campaign using such a method. 3d6 is an easy option, especially since we're already using 3d6 to roll for attacks (which is essentially a Skill vs Skill roll: OCV vs DCV) anyway. The more dice, the closer to average on the curve the rolls become.

 

Thanks for starting an interesting topic, even if I didn't agree with you hardly at all. That's what these boards are for.