Rolling mechanic question

[lordredraven]

I know there was a topic on this sometime in the recent past, but I can't seem to find it now. I know the standard way to roll to hit is 11 +(ocv-dcv of target) or less.

 

I have seen it be reworked to as

 

OCV +11 - (3d6) to determine the maximum DCV that you would have hit.

 

My question is could it be expressed mathematically the same as:

 

OCV + 3d6 vs DCV +11 ?

 

I am thinking that is the same number-wise, but I am sure that someone here has already worked out the math. I am trying to simplify the math for some new players that have experience with d20 style roll + mod vs target number style rolling. As well as this would allow you to keep a dcv somewhat hidden from the players

 

Thanks.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

1) Just stating up front I'm not a fan of the Roll High Mechanic from the outset, and really can't see why the players would have a hard time subtracting the 3D6.... but I've over estimated player intelligence before. . .

 

Another method to keep the DCV "somewhat hidden" is to allocate Skill Levels different on a Phase to Phase basis (thus one Phase everyone hits him at DCV6 or less, and he dumps his CSLs into DCV the next phase to avoid some hurt and suddenly that DCV7 or less roll misses . . . )

 

And Combat Maneuvers alter things a bit around too, good description will prevent the players from realizing he used a "Martial Strike" on that attack.

[lordredraven]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

The problem with the basic roll mechanics that I have seen, in either of the two version that involve subtraction is that they create a difference in the roll expectation for each type of roll. Players want to roll low for some things, like to hit and high for other things, like damage. It is the equivalent of ThAC0 for old D&D. The system became much better when everything becomes that same direction. Roll high for everything. Easier to remember.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I don't see that problem personally.

 

Damage: High.

Everything Else: Low.

 

Can't be that bloody hard. It just can't.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

What he said.

 

 

And GA, I really need to spread some rep around; I'm falling behind on your tab

[rjcurrie]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I've never understood the problem with rolling low for success-based rolls and rolling high for damage/effects either.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Well I for one understand it perfectly. Moreover as a GM introducing players familiar with other systems, low rolling is one of the biggest barriers to understanding and entry. Mathematical difficulty has nothing to do with it. Although mathematically it is easier.

 

The way we do it at present (and always have), what you are doing is adding the 3d6 to the DCV of the opponent and trying to keep under OCV+11. Just seems odd that you are rolling for the enemy.

 

Try this, Lordreraven:

 

High roller

 

Roll 3d6, add OCV. You have to beat DCV + 10. In fact you might want to start recording DCV with the 10 already added in.

 

Now to me, that's easy and intuitive.

 

Actually I was thinking the other day aboutt his, and I was completely going off on one. What I might resurrect and take out for a spin is the idea of replacing the 3d6 roll with a 4d6 roll: 2 green dice, 2 red. The green dice are positive, the red dice are negative, so you get a result of -10 to +10, centring on 0.

 

Then we just add the result to OCV, and compare to DCV. None of this '11' business at all, just a positive or negative modifier to your OCV to compare to DCV. Equal the DCV target and you hit.

 

Feels really good.

[Tonio]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I think it all comes down to the psychological factor... With the current system, you can't really get "into" rolling high as good (or low as good), since it depends on the situation. I don't think that system is hard to "understand", I think it's hard to get a general feeling for dice-rolling with that system. In d20 (or any other "consistent high-rolling" system), you roll the dice, see high numbers, and instinctively feel good about it. With HERO System's dice-rolling system, you either roll dice, see high numbers, think about what you're rolling for, then decide whether it's good or bad (no real "gut, instinctive feel"), or stop and think about what you're rolling, formulate an expectation or desire, roll, then feel good or bad depending on whether your expectation or desire was fulfilled or not (not a lasting, inherent feeling, but one based on a recently formed, and extremely short-term, expectation or desire).

 

Of course, this can all change if, for example, you use clear, blue, regular-sized dice for skill, attack, etc. (all the roll-under's), and big, opaque, red dice for damage and effect (the high-roll's). Or in a high-powered campaign, you can get used to wanting high numbers on large quantities of dice, but low numbers on small quantities (3, to be precise) of dice.

[Netzilla]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

In regards to adding 11 to the OCV or 10 to the DCV and recording them that way on the character sheet:

 

You'll want to be careful doing this as the modifiers that take OCV/DCV down to 1/2 or 0 do so to the base OCV/DCV only. I can see someone getting confused when applying out of combat, blinded and similar penalties.

 

For example, let's say your preferred method is OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV hit and you have players record OCV + 11 as their character's OCV. So, they have an 8 OCV, and it's written on the character sheet as 17. When they attempt to punch someone while blinded, they might believe that they should be rolling 9 - 3d6 rather than the correct 15 - 3d6.

 

As to the whole high/low rolling thing, we've introduced a handful of new players in our group (we've been together 10+ years and gain/lose folks every 2 or 3) and several of us have run demo games at cons and we don't run into any problems with folks understanding the 'roll low to-hit/roll high for damage' mechanic.

 

If, for some reason, you're worried about subtraction slowing the game down, that might happen a little at first, but most people adapt pretty quickly in my experience.

 

One thing I have done for newer or math-phobic players is create a quick-reference sheet for the Hero system. One of the things on it is a revised 'Attack Matrix' that lets you cross-index your die roll with your OCV to find out what DCV you hit.

 

If you want to take a look at my 'cheat sheet', you can find hit here. For more ideas, here the link to the full thread.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Good point about halving of OCV/DCV, Netzilla, although given that happens only a few times per combat, at most, and you use DCV every roll, I don't see it as a big problem.

 

Frankly (and I still use Hero approved rolling) what sticks in my craw about this:

 

OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV

 

Is that it is the same as this:

 

OCV + 11 = DCV + 3d6

 

You roll high and the bad guys benefit. I get around this by trying not to think about it.

 

Moreover the mechanic we use can be useful if you are the sort of freak who likes to relate roll to damage: it is much more intuitive with low roll=good. That's a couple fo other threads though.

 

So: 4d6 - what do you think?

[Tonio]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Good point about halving of OCV/DCV, Netzilla, although given that happens only a few times per combat, at most, and you use DCV every roll, I don't see it as a big problem.

 

Frankly (and I still use Hero approved rolling) what sticks in my craw about this:

 

OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV

 

Is that it is the same as this:

 

OCV + 11 = DCV + 3d6

 

You roll high and the bad guys benefit. I get around this by trying not to think about it.

 

Moreover the mechanic we use can be useful if you are the sort of freak who likes to relate roll to damage: it is much more intuitive with low roll=good. That's a couple fo other threads though.

 

So: 4d6 - what do you think?

 

I meant to comment on that, but I forgot. =/

Serves me right for trolling the boards at work, hee hee.

 

I like the concept. A lot. I haven't worked out the math (I'm sure this fiddles with the standard hitting bell curve, I just haven't worked out how), but I'm sure that can be adjusted by adding or substracting dice (one die of each color? or three dice of each color?).

 

Well, let's see... right now: OCV + 11 - 3d6 >= DCV means you hit. Ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss, the highest DCV you can hit is OCV + 11 - 3 = OCV + 8. The lowest DCV you will always hit is OCV + 11 - 18 = OCV - 7.

 

What you're proposing: OCV + 2d6 - 2d6 >= DCV means you hit. Ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss, the highest DCV you can hit is OCV + 12 - 2 = OCV + 10. The lowest DCV you will always hit is OCV + 2 - 12 = OCV - 10.

 

This means with your proposed method, ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss rules, there's a greater range of DCVs where chance is an issue, and you can hit higher DCVs. (This was expected... 4 dice as opposed to 3 makes for a fatter bell curve.) On the other hand, those extremes are harder to acheive: rolling two 1s and two 6s is harder than rolling three 1s or three 6s. Taking into consideration auto-hit and auto-miss, and assuming auto-hit and auto-miss with your system are defined as two 1s and two 6s (which color dice depending on whether it's hit or miss), the chance to hit OCV + 10, or to miss OCV - 10, is higher with the current system than with your proposed system. I view this as a good thing, though. I'm not too fond of auto-hit and auto-miss, although I do recognize the necessity (you should always have a chance to hit, or miss). The chance to hit your own DCV with the current system is 62.5% (11- on 3 dice). With your proposed system, it's close to 55.6% (the equivalent of 14- on 4 dice). I'd say this is a good thing: hitting someone who's as good as avoiding being hit as you are at hitting people should be closer to 50/50 than 62.5%.

 

I dunno, all in all your system feels better, more realistic without being "deadlier". I like it!

[Netzilla]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

So: 4d6 - what do you think?

 

In reference to:

Actually I was thinking the other day aboutt his, and I was completely going off on one. What I might resurrect and take out for a spin is the idea of replacing the 3d6 roll with a 4d6 roll: 2 green dice, 2 red. The green dice are positive, the red dice are negative, so you get a result of -10 to +10, centring on 0.

 

 

How very Feng Shui of you. (For those who don't know, the FS die mechanic is to roll one positive die and one negative die and add the result to your appropriate Stat+Skill to get an outcome).

 

It's nicely intuitive in that negative negative rolls are bad, positive rolls are good and 0 is the break-even point. My only worry on this is in the change in odds. You go from 3d6 odds:

 

3 = 0.46%

4 = 1.85%

5 = 4.63%

6 = 9.26%

7 = 16.2%

8 = 25.93%

9 = 37.5%

10 = 50%

11 = 62.5%

12 = 70.07%

13 = 83.8%

14 = 90.74%

15 = 95.37%

16 = 98.15%

17 = 99.54%

18 = 100%

 

To 4d6:

 

-10 = 0.08%

-9 = 0.39%

-8 = 1.16%

-7 = 2.7%

-6 = 5.4%

-5 = 9.72%

-4 = 15.9%

-3 = 23.92%

-2 = 33.56%

-1 = 44.37%

0 = 55.63%

1 = 66.44%

2 = 76.08%

3 = 84.1%

4 = 90.28%

5 = 94.6%

6 = 97.3%

7 = 98.84%

8 = 99.61%

9 = 99.92%

10 = 100%

 

This changes the odds of certain things quite a bit. On 3d6, when OCV = DCV, your odds to hit are around 63%. Using the 4d6, it drops to 55%. Auto-hit & auto-misses on 3d6 are both about 0.5% each (1 in 216), while on 4d6 they're only 0.08% (1 in 1296). This changes the values of various modifiers in the system. Probably not a big deal on situational modifiers, but those mods that cost points (CSLs, martial manuevers and so forth) may end up not costing right any more.

 

So, if you're comfortable with the changes to odds, the intuitiveness of the average roll = 0 is nice.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I personally think the "trying to simplify the math for the D20 players" is insulting and belittling to your players... Unless they're 4 years old the change up shouldn't cause more than a slight pause in a session or two as they learn the system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I personally think the "trying to simplify the math for the D20 players" is insulting and belittling to your players... Unless they're 4 years old the change up shouldn't cause more than a slight pause in a session or two as they learn the system.

 

I have to say it again: I don't think it is a maths problem, I think that people who are familiar with most other role playing games, or even not familiar with role playing games at all intuitively think that a higher total is a better roll. I'm not sure there is any good reason to work against intuition: to do so makes the learning curve that little bit steeper, and I don't see that as a positive thing.

 

But the maths is simpler

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Actually I was thinking the other day aboutt his' date=' and I was completely going off on one. What I might resurrect and take out for a spin is the idea of replacing the 3d6 roll with a 4d6 roll: 2 green dice, 2 red. The green dice are positive, the red dice are negative, so you get a result of -10 to +10, centring on 0.[/quote']

 

IIRC, you mentioned this a long time ago, and I pointed out that it's mathematically the same as just rolling 4d6 of the same color and subtracting 14. And the same holds true for the "Feng Shui" method: +d6-d6 is exactly the same as 2d6-7. Sure, the different colors might look pretty, but they have no effect on the game mechanics.

 

The 4d6 bell curve is steeper than the 3d6 curve, which it seems to me is an undesirable result. And the 2d6 "bell curve" is not really bell-shaped - it's triangular - a straight line up and a straight line down.

 

And you can do the same thing while keeping the standard HERO bell curve, if you like: roll two "positive" dice and one "negative" die. You get the exact same bell curve as 3d6-7.

 

I don't see anything gained by the "positive and negative dice" method.

 

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.

[robertep]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead' date=' which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.[/quote']

would you then multiple all CSLs and other modifiers by two ? or would you leave them the same ??

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

IIRC, you mentioned this a long time ago, and I pointed out that it's mathematically the same as just rolling 4d6 of the same color and subtracting 14. And the same holds true for the "Feng Shui" method: +d6-d6 is exactly the same as 2d6-7. Sure, the different colors might look pretty, but they have no effect on the game mechanics.

 

The 4d6 bell curve is steeper than the 3d6 curve, which it seems to me is an undesirable result. And the 2d6 "bell curve" is not really bell-shaped - it's triangular - a straight line up and a straight line down.

 

And you can do the same thing while keeping the standard HERO bell curve, if you like: roll two "positive" dice and one "negative" die. You get the exact same bell curve as 3d6-7.

 

I don't see anything gained by the "positive and negative dice" method.

 

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.

 

I did and you did

 

3d6 has (to my mind) the (slight) problem that you can never actually make an 'average' roll. I appreciate that is no problem at all in practice, it is just a matter of aesthetics.

 

I have actually tried the 4d6 method (I started writing a rpg system, and even playtested it) and I was surprised at how often quite extreme results come up. It did not feel wrong in practice, and gave a decent range of results that were reasonably, but not completely predictable.

 

The nice thing about 2d6-2d6, as opposed to 4d6-14, is that, in practice, you can often cancel dice out, so speeding the result: 3 and 6 v 2 and 3 means you ignore the 3s and just get 6-2=4 as a result.

 

Also, in the system I was working on, if you rolled a double it had some enhanced or detrimental effect: more difficult to extract the information from a 4d6-14 roll.

 

Finally thre is something quite satisfying about having a result that averages zero: you are not introducing any new numbers into the system and the 'look and feel' is much more of a modified OCV/DCV contest rather than a somewhat remote calculation.

 

I can't see the 3d12 catching on, personally: no matter how statistically satisfying people are unlikely to feel comfortable with the dice: those little cubes have a place in the gestalt cousciousness of the gamer and non-gamer communities.

 

 

I've just thought of something though: extracting as much information from dice as you can is quite important to me: a single roll can accomplish a lot.

 

Here's two possible uses for that:

 

1. Damage based (partly) on success - if you hit the target you add the dice roll result to the damage. This way you don't actually get more damage for having a high OCV (which throws a lot of the rest of the system off) but you DO get modified damage for being lucky. I appreciate that low OCV characters would only ever hit with a damage bonus, but I don't see that as a problem: they are not hitting so often. In fact you could use standard (or average) damage, and modify by the 'to hit' roll for damage variation. That could speed things up a lot (read them like normal dice: 6 = 6 stun and 2 body). If you want MORE damage variation, if a 'set' (positive or negative) are a pair, roll again and add. That's like having a built in critical system at no extra cost.

 

2. You could actually use 4 different coloured dice (white and green for positive, say, and red and black for negative) then you could designate a couple of them as initiative dice , say green and red. If the green result is higher, whatever the 'total' result, you take your next phase 1 segment early, and if the red result is higher, one segment late.

 

The point is that the 'to hit' roll can be so much more, if we extract all the infomation we can from the result. Sure you can do that with 3d6*, but the options are wider and perhaps more intuitive with 4d6.

 

 

 

 

* To do something similar on 3d6, roll 3 different coloured dice, say red, green, blue. Designate red and green as initiative dice. Use standard damage and ADD the blue die if your damage is in the 1-4 DC range, the blue and red dice if it is in the 5-8 DC range and all the result dice if it is 9+DCs. I'm making thuis up, you understand, but it sounds do-able

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

would you then multiple all CSLs and other modifiers by two ? or would you leave them the same ??

 

 

Probably leave them the same: less use in the middle ground, more use at the edges.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

OK, while I'm talking heresy, wouldn't it make more sense to have the number you need succeed be 10- not 11-: that way there is a perfect 50:50 chance of success or failure in a contest between two peopll of identical ability. At present you have a 62.5% chance of succeeding IF you are the 'active' party.

 

I mean, call me old fashioned, but that just seems to make sense.

 

I do appreciate that it might slow combat (as three would be less successful hits) but that isn't a good argument: if that mattered, we would hit on 14-, or 17-.

[Alibear]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Maybe the want to make the aggressor more likely to win in a combat?

[Netzilla]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

OK, while I'm talking heresy, wouldn't it make more sense to have the number you need succeed be 10- not 11-: that way there is a perfect 50:50 chance of success or failure in a contest between two peopll of identical ability. At present you have a 62.5% chance of succeeding IF you are the 'active' party.

 

I mean, call me old fashioned, but that just seems to make sense.

 

I do appreciate that it might slow combat (as three would be less successful hits) but that isn't a good argument: if that mattered, we would hit on 14-, or 17-.

 

I believe that the odds of hitting are one of the reasons that defense is always cheaper to buy than offense. The to-hit roll is skewed in favor of the attacker, so defense costs are skewed in favor of the defender.

[Tonio]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

IIRC' date=' you mentioned this a long time ago, and I pointed out that it's mathematically the same as just rolling 4d6 of the same color and subtracting 14. And the same holds true for the "Feng Shui" method: +d6-d6 is exactly the same as 2d6-7. Sure, the different colors might look pretty, but they have no effect on the game mechanics.[/quote']

 

I don't think it's a "colors" thing, it's a simplicity thing. 4d6-14 makes you ask "why substract 14? how do I remember it's 14, not 12 or 15?". 2d6 - 2d6 feels cleaner.

 

The 4d6 bell curve is steeper than the 3d6 curve' date=' which it seems to me is an undesirable result. And the 2d6 "bell curve" is not really bell-shaped - it's triangular - a straight line up and a straight line down.[/quote']

 

The 4d6 bell curve isn't steeper, it's fatter (less steep). And the 2d6 bell curve is a curve (well, as much as any dice-roll bell curves are real "curves"... they're really points in a curve, since there's 0 chance of rolling a 12.7 on 3d6). The 1d6 "bell curve" is a straight, horizontal line.

 

And you can do the same thing while keeping the standard HERO bell curve' date=' if you like: roll two "positive" dice and one "negative" die. You get the exact same bell curve as 3d6-7.[/quote']

 

True, although that mucks with the chances to hit and stuff, since the average roll is lower. On the other hand, I feel a fatter bell curve (offered by 4d6) is a good thing. =)

 

I don't see anything gained by the "positive and negative dice" method.

 

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.

 

3d12 gives you more granularity, but the same curve. Maybe more granularity is a good thing... I'm not sure it's needed at all, though. Maybe for low-powered games, where CVs are lower?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I believe that the odds of hitting are one of the reasons that defense is always cheaper to buy than offense. The to-hit roll is skewed in favor of the attacker' date=' so defense costs are skewed in favor of the defender.[/quote']

 

 

That's what we are told, but do we ever question the wisdom?

 

To protect yourself against a 1d6 EB you need 6 points of ED, 4 of which can take the limitation 'only v stun' -1/2, the cost of which is 2+(4/1.5)=5 points. Then you need 2 points of KB resistance, total 9 points to defend against a 5 point attack.

 

Tell me again why the roll to hit is skewed in favour fo the attacker?

 

The 'break point' is arbitrary, whereever it falls: it just appears more decorous to me if it falls at the midpoint.

[Netzilla]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

That's what we are told, but do we ever question the wisdom?

 

To protect yourself against a 1d6 EB you need 6 points of ED, 4 of which can take the limitation 'only v stun' -1/2, the cost of which is 2+(4/1.5)=5 points.

 

Assuming that your character starts with a 0 ED, to be completely immune would cost you those 5 points. To protect against the average roll would only cost you 4.

 

Also, look at the cost of other attacks:

* Flash 5 per 1d6 & does max 2 "dmg"; 2 Flash Def costs 2 pts.

* Ego Blast is 10 per d6 (max 6) & 6 Mental Defense costs 6 per points.

* Drains cost 10 per d6 (max 6) & 6 Power Def costs 6 per points.

* Killing Attacks cost 15 per d6 (max 6) & 6 Armor costs 9.

 

Then you need 2 points of KB resistance, total 9 points to defend against a 5 point attack.

 

First, you only need to worry about KB resistance after the first dice of EB, so you essentially have 2 for free. Second, as KB is based on Body, it's highly unlikely that you'll need all that much unless the attack is very large or has an advantage to increase knockback. In practice, you really only need 1" KB resistance per die after 7 dice. Go with 1 per after 4 dice if you're paranoid.

 

Additionally, you can resist KB with STR or Flight. The damage from KB is likely less than the damage of the attack itself, thus the defense you already have will probably protect you from KB damage. Finally, Breakfall is only 3 points.

 

Tell me again why the roll to hit is skewed in favour fo the attacker?

 

Actually, I suspect that it's the other way around. Defense is cheaper because hits come more often.

 

The 'break point' is arbitrary, whereever it falls: it just appears more decorous to me if it falls at the midpoint.

 

Weather or not it's arbitrary is really a question for the original system designers. However, the average person failing to punch another average person 50% of the time is a bit silly in my estimation. I think 63% is actually too low, but works well enough. That's one of the things that's always struck me as odd with most RPGs.

 

In most, the average person is way harder to hit than they are in real life.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

................................

Weather or not it's arbitrary is really a question for the original system designers. However, the average person failing to punch another average person 50% of the time is a bit silly in my estimation. I think 63% is actually too low, but works well enough. That's one of the things that's always struck me as odd with most RPGs.

 

In most, the average person is way harder to hit than they are in real life.

 

Not necessarily failing to hit, just failing to hit well enough to do any damage worth recording: I assume that most combats include all sorts of feints and even blows that we do not record. The roll just shows the net effect.

 

IMO, obviously.