2d10

[Citizen Keen]

Has anyone had any success turning HEROs 3d6 into a 2d10 to even out the curve?

[Klytus]

I think evening out the curve sort of defeats the whole purpose of having the curve there in the first place.

[Sociotard]

It's worth mentioning

 

I don't know if it matters, but in addition to showing less curve (and I know few men who like that) 2d10's generate a number between 2 and 20 instead of 3 and 18. That means the "hump" of the probability curve for 2d10 is on the 11, wheras on 3d6 it's on 10.5. In laymans terms, 2d10's will usually roll higher than 3d6 (not much, but it may be something that needs to be addressed.) Besides, d6's are cheaper.

I might be interested in using d10's to calculate damage. let's see, if 5 points gets me a d6 worth of damage, 8 points sounds right for a d10 (5/6)*10=8.333 Hmmmmm, that does sound good. Lets see what happens If I carry this idea a little further. . .

1d4 = 3.333

1d6 = 5

1d8 = 6.667

1d10 = 8.333

1d12 = 10

1d20 = 16.667

1d100 = 83.333

Thought's?

[Talon]

I've never done it, but it has been discussed extensively in the past (as in, when the Red October BBS was active). Never heard much about results from actual play, though.

[Toadmaster]

Re: It's worth mentioning

 

Originally posted by Sociotard

I might be interested in using d10's to calculate damage. let's see, if 5 points gets me a d6 worth of damage, 8 points sounds right for a d10 (5/6)*10=8.333 Hmmmmm, that does sound good. Lets see what happens If I carry this idea a little further. . .

1d4 = 3.333

1d6 = 5

1d8 = 6.667

1d10 = 8.333

1d12 = 10

1d20 = 16.667

1d100 = 83.333

Thought's?

 

I've thought of trying something like this for damage but never have done it, I actually went so far as putting together a chart for small arms ammo when I was playing DI during high school. The chart is long gone (17+ years will do that). I may have look into it again. I think that the dice over d10 probably throw the variables off to far for most things that cause damage though (I think I would prefer 10d10 over 1d100), the use of differant combinations of dice can be useful for providing similar damage with differant averages. For example a .22 LR can kill you just as well as a 9mm if it hits the right spot so you could have a .22 LR doing 1d6 and a 9mm doing 2d4, the over all damage is not much differant but the 9mm has an advantage due to a higher average and slightly higher max.

[Nightshade]

Truthfully, I never liked d10's. I have always sort of wished that they had used 3d8s in lieu of the 3d6's, just so we could have a 3-24 scale instead of 3-18. It would make for more range of skill IMO.

 

Anyway, I would also note that the scale is different with the 2d10 method (2-20, not 3-18). This means that you may have to adjust the 8- and 14- rolls slightly if you want them to be more or less frequent.

 

Nightshade

[Hugh Neilson]

WAAAYYYY back, Hero had a newsletter they sent to members (I think this even predated Adventurers' Club). One of them had point costs for "funny dice".

 

They went up to d100, IIRC, and each one was "0 BOD on a 1, 12 BOD on max roll, 1 BOD otherwise". Don't want to kill your opponent? Buy d100 damage!

[Guest Keneton]

Lets just scrpa the whole sytem

 

I am all for new ideas, but what possesses people to post ideas like this. How would rolling 2 dice even out a bell curve made with three dice? The Last time I checked 3 was bigger than 2.

 

How would you handle cv? Cost of levels and martial arts would need radical revision.

 

Why not you just redo the whole system? Obviously the best game system of all time is not good enough.

 

What advantage would two inperfect d10 have over 3d6. Would you use d10 for everything and redo all damage, defenses, cv, knockback rules, killing attacks, hit lovcations, activation rolls. . . The list goes on and on.

 

Oh, but we do get a smaller more jagged non bell curve all for the price of demolishing the whole hero system basis. What a deal!

 

 

[Ndreare]

I am sensing some hostility here. I personally don’t like the idea and think of it as counter productive. However I think there is a better way to tell someone than extreme reactions like this.

 

I personally have always thought of the hero system and the gurps system as inherently better because of their simplicity. The D6 thing is part of that simplicity so I would never change it.

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Ndreare

I am sensing some hostility here. I personally don’t like the idea and think of it as counter productive. However I think there is a better way to tell someone than extreme reactions like this.

 

 

No hostility intended, although I can see how my words may be taken. To any offended I apologize.

 

As for my points, I stand by them. IDEAS are under attack, not PEOPLE. I would never intentionally single anyone out on these boards no have I in the past.

 

Radical basis shifts like makeing d20 a percentile game or making the d6 sytem a diceless game are too radical. By basis I mean they attack the basi mechanics of the game. Revising things like stun multiples or the power level of advantages is one thing, attacking the basis of a sytem is another.

 

Possibly the originator of the 2d10 idea has a whole system in mind. I would be very eager to learn of it, but then it would not be hero would it?

 

[Patriot]

Question

 

Why fix what isnt broken???

[Talon]

If you look at the bell curves, the 2d10 curve is much flatter than 3d6. Simple illustration: you'll roll a 2 (or a 20) 1 roll in 100, while a 3d6 3 (or 18) is only 1 roll in 216.

 

Because the range is close to that of 3d6, you actually don't have to do a ton of rules-changing. The only question is whether a flatter bell curve makes for a better game. I'd argue no, so I've never tried it out.

[Garlak]

Dont want to play on semantics but:

2d10 does not give a curve, it increases and decreases constantly which gives straight lines.

 

2: 1%

3: 2%

4: 3%

5: 4%

6: 5%

7: 6%

8: 7%

9: 8%

10: 9%

11: 10%

12: 9%

13: 8%

14: 7%

15: 6%

16: 5%

17: 4%

18: 3%

19: 2%

20: 1%

[Kintara]

Bah, I like 5d4-2 myself.

[Agent Escafarc]

My hat for 2d10 now no limit:D

[yamamura]

Why just stick with dice of same side. how about a d10 and d8 evens out the curve and keeps the number pretty much the same. But really I would just stick with the d6s, after all the system was designed to work around them.

 

G

[Jeff]

I like my little cubes. The Cube is your friend. Embrace the Cube!

 

They're cheap, you've got a lot of them, you can get more, you're going to have them on hand anyway - there's no natural proposal that occurs off the top of my head to banish them from a DC 12 normal damage attack - and I think extreme results should be suitable rare. Embrace the Curve too!

[Dauntless]

Since I think almost all roleplayers have the "game design bug", it's interesting to come up with different dice mechanics.

 

I've been wondering myself whether a more flat curve or a steep bell curve makes more sense. I know I don't want a flat linear line however, since that means it's just as possible to roll the mean as it is at either extreme. Real life is graded on the curve...you usually don't have exceptional success, and you usually don't critically botch things either.

 

While the 2d10 system could work, you might have to change a few rules. if you use critical hit rules, you may want to rethink them since they will be easier to achieve. Also, would you stick to using d10's for damage rolls? If so, that will play havoc with the damage values of weapons.

 

I do have one major beef with the Hero System though that I'm seriously considering correcting for any future games I run. I believe that combat rolls should be opposed skill rolls rather than 11+OCV-DCV. When combat is done the standard way, all the "luck" is in the hands of the attacker. However, the defender is also performing a skill, whether it be a dodge, a block, or any other manuever, so why shouldn't he roll for his skill as well? This way you allow the defender to roll for his luck and it also allows for a more vivid description of what happens during combat. For example, in the normal system, if the attacker just barely hits...does that mean the attack was poorly aimed and it barely hit? Or perhaps both combatants performed extremely well, having adroit movements and well-timed blows...but the attacker just happened to be a little better? I'm also thinking of having "Straight" CV's based off of pure DEX, rather than DEX/3. Why? When was the last time you saw a 16 or 19 DEX? Other than getting an extra point for SPD, I've seen only a handful of players chose a DEX that couldn't round up to the closest CV (and most players that do have an "odd" DEX only do so because they paid for it with experience points)

 

I'm even thinking of allowing extra DC depending on the margin of success. The Hero System is great, but it's far from perfect (for my own tastes). But what I like about the Hero System is that it's very easy to tweak things to your liking without disrupting too much. Changing the entire die mechanic is certainly possible, but it might create a domino effect that knocks over other rules that you also have to adjust. If you change it to a 2d10 system and leave the damage system with the standard d6 system, I think it's doable...though I think the flatness of the bell curve might introduce more "deviant" behavior (you'll get more extreme results more often with a 2d10 system).

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Dauntless

I do have one major beef with the Hero System though that I'm seriously considering correcting for any future games I run. I believe that combat rolls should be opposed skill rolls rather than 11+OCV-DCV. When combat is done the standard way, all the "luck" is in the hands of the attacker. However, the defender is also performing a skill, whether it be a dodge, a block, or any other manuever, so why shouldn't he roll for his skill as well? This way you allow the defender to roll for his luck and it also allows for a more vivid description of what happens during combat. For example, in the normal system, if the attacker just barely hits...does that mean the attack was poorly aimed and it barely hit? Or perhaps both combatants performed extremely well, having adroit movements and well-timed blows...but the attacker just happened to be a little better?

The luck isn't all in the attacker's hands, as the result depends just as much on the defender's DCV as his OCV. How you describe what happens can be attack-side or defense-side driven, or a bit of both. In general, I'd emphasise the luck of it in case of low OCV's hitting or missing low DCV's, or any extreme roll, and the skill/talent of both parties in the case of high OCV's hitting or missing high DCV's.

 

Going with an opposed skill roll treatment might be tidier in that it'd reduce the number of different mechanics used for character competition in the system. Similarly, STR vs. STR rolls to handle getting out of grabs and the like might be a way to go.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Dauntless

I'm also thinking of having "Straight" CV's based off of pure DEX, rather than DEX/3. Why? When was the last time you saw a 16 or 19 DEX? Other than getting an extra point for SPD, I've seen only a handful of players chose a DEX that couldn't round up to the closest CV (and most players that do have an "odd" DEX only do so because they paid for it with experience points)

 

I've seen 25 every so often. Mainly because 23 is so popular, so some characters buy 24 to move first, leading to occasional 25's to beat the 24's. Rare, though.

 

If it bugs you for DEX, what about CON and STR? And when's the last time you saw an odd numbered COM or END? INT almost always is "rounded" because it only hits skill rolls. EGO gets rolls and CV's so it has DEX type breakpoints. PRE generates dice and CHAR rolls, so same thing - 5's, 3's, 8's and 10's.

 

Of the primary stats, only BOD is bought one point at a time.

 

I've considered a structure where, if you miss a CHAR roll (skills included) by one, and your stat exceeds the breakpoint, you get a 1 in 6 chance of success per extra point (eg. DEX 21 rolls a 14 DEX check - just missed; 3 in 6 chance of success after all). I worked damage in 1 point increments as well (+1 point; +1-2 pts; 1/2 die; d6-1; d6). But the marginal gradations don't make up for all the extra die rolling.

[Dauntless]

Actually for my own game design, I'm getting away from any statistic with divisonal effects, since it's just a case for potential mini-maxing abuse. A system that can base task resolutions directly off of the skill + attribute without any direct modifications will help reduce this power-gaming side effect. So yeah, I'm tired of seeing STR or EGO that ends in 0, 5, 3 or 8. Ditto with never seeing odd COM. It sorts of disrupts the scale of attributes because of the divisional effects to determine secondary attributes (dividing by 5, 3 or 2 and rounding appropriately).

 

As for the luck of combat, when you require only one die-roll resolution, you are essentially simulating actions in one lump sum. Imagine for a second if you fought a large scale strategy battle like the battle at Gettysburg, and simply summed up the strategy and tactics skills of all the generals, the fighting scores of all the troops and then made one roll. When you do this, you start losing internal accuracy since you are simulating only one action....the final outcome. Instead you should be simulating each sides actions in their own right, and comparing how well each side did to the other.

 

So instead, if you factor out each side....take all the skills and fighting ability of the Northern side, and the skills and fighting ability of the Southern side, you now have a more complete picture of what happened. Each side is affected by fate and the personal conditions at the time.

 

As another example, imagine you are fighting an equally skilled opponent. The attacker rolls really great and hits you. Why is that? Did the attacker just happen to get lucky? Or maybe you unfortunately put your foot on slippery ground leaving you wide open? In other words, where was the "luck"? Was it with the attacker or against the defender? This is why the more you factor out events involving chance the less detailed it will be as to what is going on. Moreover, you can't get the same margins of success. In the above example, the best margin of success I could get is a 8 (on an 11 or less, rolling a 3). Now imagine both characters roll in an opposed system. Imagine if the attacker rolls a 3 and the defender rolls an 18 (oops). Well, you now have a margin of success of 15 (perhaps the attacker got really lucky, and you stepped on that slippery ground at the same time). I'd actually use a comparison system though....adding the die roll to the respective OCV or DCV, then whoever rolled highest wins (so in this case, you always want to roll high instead of low in order to beat the other side).

 

In any situation in which one character is performing a skill or attribute related task versus another character's skill or attribute, then both characters should roll. Afterall, both characters can be affected by fate. In another forum, someone argued that you can factor the luck of both sides into one roll. As I pointed out though, the more elements you factor out, the less accurate it will be. Imagine for a second extrapolating this out, and just making one die roll for an entire war. After all, you can just factor out all the luck into one die roll. Not to mention that the Hero System itself sometimes has opposed rolls for some tasks. I definitely think it should apply to combat, as it's not only more realistic from a simulation perspective, but it also adds to the dramatic description of what's going on action wise, and it takes no extra time since both players can roll at the same time.

[Tech]

First, slightly off the topic:

 

After reading these posts, I wonder if me & my friends are perhaps the only, or one of the rare, gamers who have no problem with regularly giving Statistics other than the 10, 15, 20 and so on or 13, 18, 23, etc. I posted this before in a different post but I can immediately think of characters I designed with a 22 Dex to start and 400+ experience later, hasn't changed it. 14 INT, 17 EGO, 11 or 12 INT, etc etc., are a few examples and aren't uncommon. We all saw the cheesing from the previous Enemies and CKC with 18 STR, 23 CON, etc., and like the oddball numbers. It's building character, not a bunch of stats, that rules the campaign.

 

Now, on to the debate, I prefer the simple 3d6 rolling, rather than redesigning the system. However, a roll vs roll is at least interesting to read about. Has anyone done this in their games?

[Toadmaster]

Changing the die rolling mechanics does not require tossing out the whole HERO system, it only requires a change in how success rolls are figured and possibly modifying some costs. There is a % based HERO out there on the internet someplace (I don't recall the address) but its only one or two pages of changes, FRED is what 400 pages, basic chargen, powers, ads/disads etc are virtually unaffected. Some people just don't like the 3d6 thing. Damage dice are even easier to change.

 

I like the idea of using contested rolls for combat although I would be concerned that it could become excessively complicated (GURPS uses contested rolls, passive defence, dodge, block etc on every roll, combat is far more complex and time consuming compared to HERO). But the idea is worthwhile, I suppose the keep it as it is reply would be, yes but the other persons luck gets counted when they make their attack roll. I would also think that it would make more sense to use contested rolls for melee combat where each fighters actions have much more to do with hitting and missing than for missile combat where the targets actions are less important (or included in the initial difficulty roll), it could also effect how dodge, block etc are figured. So I'm not sure the extra work is worth it to me, but I'd be interested to see the results if you wind up developing the idea.

[CorpCommander]

Long live the D12!

 

More powerful than the lowly D10!

 

Able to take on 2 D6's!

 

The oft forgotten D12!

 

Doesn't roll around as much as the D20 (which is more spherical) and thus saves time during gaming sessions. After 50 years of gaming with a D12 system you will THANK me for the hundreds of extra games you got to play in over those D20 guys!

 

My luv of D12 knows no bounds!

 

/hack/

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Ndreare

I am sensing some hostility here. I personally don’t like the idea and think of it as counter productive. However I think there is a better way to tell someone than extreme reactions like this.

 

I personally have always thought of the hero system and the gurps system as inherently better because of their simplicity. The D6 thing is part of that simplicity so I would never change it.

 

Bah, the suggestion is heresy and for being tolerant you are a heretic as well!

 

Seriously, I'd like to hear the motivation to "even out" the bell curve, i.e., what is the problem being addressed. That being said, I don't like the idea of a flatter curve, I like the way it is shaped now except that the scale is a bit limited given the cheap cost to buy up skills.

 

I really like what was said about 3d8 though and that just might work, have to give it some thought, retaining 11/less or just upping it a bit. Maybe even 3d10 with 13/less even. Given I find people powergame with skills more than powers in my group yet I like having high-points skills, this may be a reasonable adjustment. I'm not sure I like making it more difficult per se, just a lower curve perhaps, so maybe I'll try 3d8 or 3d10 with 13/less (mid-curve) or 17/less (similar to 3d6, just past mid-curve) and see if that simply makes the higher and lower degrees of success more gradually sloped.

 

Then again, I'm not sure it's worth messing with. It isn't broken. Just the urge to tweak to see if it can fit the group "precisely".