Playing around with the rules...

[SteveZilla]

Hi all, I was wondering if anybody has tried to replace the 3d6 (to-hits, skills, etc.) with some other set of dice (or a single die) in any Hero System games they are in or run? I'm curious about the observed impact (if any) on how the game "plays" with the different probability curve/distribution, as well as what the change was in the first place.

 

Thanks!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Not in Hero, but I also play DnD which uses d20, same average roll as Hero, VERY different distribution. Flattening the curve makes things a LOT more random, with 1 and 20 results occurring with alarming frequency (actually about 1 in 20 each, but you don't realise how many times the dice get rolled. Unless you count.)

 

DnD4 is almost like Hero with some really odd campaign and build guidelines, so the comparison is not bad. One real difference though is that DnD tends to do less damage per hit, which mitigates the randomness of the chance to hit. In a Hero game where 3 hits puts you down, I think you will probably get some unfortunate runs if you have a flatter probability curve.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Ditto what Sean said - your odds of rolling a 1 or a 20 on a d20 closely match your odds of rolling a 16 - 18 or a 3-5 in Hero.

 

I find the die roll much more important, at least until high levels (and high bonuses) are attained in D&D.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Has anybody given thought to trying something between the 3d6 and the d20? Something that is not completely flat like the d20, but not as sharply "belled" as the 3d6?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Say, 2d10? I can't think of any other combo between the two in volatility which would generate a similar numerical range. Haven't tried it, but I expect the results would be more importance on the roll (as it will be more volatile) than with 3d6, but character ability having more impact than d20.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Masterbook used (among other things) a 2d10 resolution system. I was thinking something tailored to the 3-18 range that 3d6 gives but with a less "belled" distribution. It might not seem elegant, but a d8 + d9 +1 achieves this exactly.

[hancock.tom]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

[starts looking in his dice bag for the d9]

 

[SteveZilla]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Take a d10 and color out either the 0 or the 1 (which indicates a re-roll), depending upon how you want the results read.

 

 

D9 +1 can be achieved by coloring out the 1 (it gets rerolled), and reading the 0 as "10".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

You could also, using a sharp knife, cut the 9 off a d10, paint in a little tail on the 0 to make it a 9, then glue the 9 you cut off onto a d8, so you have 2d9. That certainly seems like the most straightforward solution.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Okay, that's getting just a taaaad absurd. Besides, 2d9 has a range of 2-18, not 3-18.

[hancock.tom]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Okay' date=' that's getting just a taaaad absurd. Besides, 2d9 has a range of 2-18, not 3-18. [/quote']

 

Thats Unique. I might scribble out Steve Long's name on my copy of Fred, write in my own, replace every instance of 3d6 in the rules with 2d9 and self-publish it using kickstarter.

 

2d9 = your mind gets blown.

 

CLASSLESS LEVEL-FREE ROLEPLAYING with the unique "2D9" system*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Thanks to Sean Waters and Steve Long for contributing ideas to this kickstarter project.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Okay' date=' that's getting just a taaaad absurd. Besides, 2d9 has a range of 2-18, not 3-18. [/quote']

 

A tad absurd? Shame: I was aiming for completely ridiculous

 

IIRC the 'curve' for two dice is in fact a pyramid, with two straight lines meeting at the average roll point.

 

For all I know, d20 may better simulate the chaos of actual combat, in some instances; it probably does a better job of the swirl of battle where you have no idea where the next attack is coming from, and even the best fighter can stumble and miss. OTOH, 3d6 probably does a better job of a duel where most factors other than your opponent are largely controlled for, making the effect of skill more pronounced and the outcome more predictable - but still not assured. You could make an argument for using differnt dice types depending on the sort of combat it is.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

What about a d100(percentile) distribution? I guess you'd have to multiply base roll by 5 or so, then just add the char straight:IOW, 45+INT/DEX/PRE % chance. Alternatively you could make it 50 or 55, which would give you a 100% for 18-. Every point of the stat would matter. I dunno whether it would make sense to allow fractional point expenditures to up your roll. But it would certainly increase the granularity while flattening out the curve.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

d% increases the possibilities, but has the same volatility issue as the d20. 2d100/2 would flatten it out (and 2d20/2 would flatten it out as well if you wanted to stick with a range similar to 3d6).

 

As for 2d9, clearly if you roll a 2 you have to re-roll!

[psyber624]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

3d6 makes being relative in skill levels, OCV and DCV matter more. You also have a much better idea of what your character can accomplish. d20 is wildly random, not to mention the fact that the upper end becomes MUCH more likely (3d6 has 2.7 chance of rolling an 18. 1d20 has 15% chance of getting an 18 or better.) You can adjust the difficulty of skill use somewhat to accomplish this, but the end result is you still have tons of instances where the person with pathetic skill succeeds at the impossible, and the person with the awesome skill failing to do mundane uses. Also, without the bell curve they are much less important as the odds don't change much with each step (with a d20 every skill point is a flat 5% increase in chance to hit. With 3d6 the benefit is relative to the target number (the closer you are to the target, the more benefit each +1 gives you, but as you get further away from the target (ie over or under) each point quickly diminishes in effect.

 

I played Fuzion/Power Core for a while, and it recommended a d10 system (with modifications to difficulty and such to compensate for the narrower range of possible results). I tried it for a while like that, but it seemed that skills levels became almost TOO important, with only a range of 1-10 you still flubbed easy tasks far too often (without really high skill levels), but there was also no reason to even try that truly difficult stuff, you had no chance of succeeding. I personally prefer 3d6 (i like bell curve resolutions. Stuff around your skill level is fairly easy to hit, with Exceptionally good or bad rolls being infrequent. It also makes critical hit/miss rules (if you like those things) less disruptive to gaming (as they occur less often)

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

During the 6e discussion, someone suggested 2d6+1d6*3. It gives a flat center section (13-22), but tapered ends (5-12, 23-30).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

3d6 makes being relative in skill levels' date=' OCV and DCV matter more. You also have a much better idea of what your character can accomplish. d20 is wildly random, not to mention the fact that the upper end becomes MUCH more likely (3d6 has 2.7 chance of rolling an 18. 1d20 has 15% chance of getting an 18 or better.) You can adjust the difficulty of skill use somewhat to accomplish this[/quote']

 

Not really. If you have two characters, one with a -1 in a skill (-2 ability score + 1 rank, say) and the second with +11 (+3 from ability score and 8 ranks, say), a task which requires a 9 for success (the lowest autosuccess for the very skilled character), then the barely trained, inept character succeeds 55% of the time (10+). If we want a meaningful challenge for the skilled character, maybe we set the required level of success high enough that the inept character cannot succeed, but a task the inept character cannot succeed at (DC 20) leaves a 40% chance of failure for the supposedly very skilled character.

 

The "take 10" mechanic smooths this out if the task isn't done under stress conditions, but given the difference in bonuses, a greater differentiation in success seems desirable. We also need very large bonuses/penalties to make them meaningful.

 

Move over to Hero, and a task the Familiar character (8- roll) has a 50% chance to succeed at (pretty easy, so a 2 point bonus) is pretty simple for a character with natural aptitude (characteristic 13) and basic training (base skill roll), who will have a 15- (95% success). If we have a character who is extremely skilled (say, 16-roll - "highly skilled; one of the best people in the world" according to p 56 of 6e Vol 1), and we give him a moderately difficult task (say, a -3 penalty), he will still succeed 5/6 of the time, and taking some extra time will improve that (+2 bonus means 95% success), while that Familiarity means less than a 5% chance of success, and the same extra time will only bump him to one chance in 6.

 

I think Hero could stand some improvement in the area of autosuccess, though. The D&D character can be confident in succeeding in many tasks when he can take 10, and knows that, with time, he can overcome a lot more challenges (take 20). In Hero, we give characters a PS: 11- in "their job". We also assign modifiers of +1 to +3 for "easy" tasks and +3 to +5 for "routine" tasks. Do most (experienced) people fail at a routine job task 1 time in 20 (11+4 = 15-; 95% success chance) or at an easy task 1 time in 6 (11 + 2 = 13-)? Probably not. Now, maybe they take Extra Time, which is why they generally succeed, but the rules don't really provide much guidance for a "routine" or "easy" task, and many GM's are more inclined to apply penalties than add bonuses.

 

A "familiarity" should allow a reasonable prospect of success with basic tasks. It is "a basic knowledge" of the skill. I don't think the average person is incapable of counting their change one time in 6, but I also don't think their math skills go beyond "a basic knowledge" and even a +5 to the roll only gives them a 13- chance of success.

 

Part of the problem is that, if "easy" tasks get a bonus and "difficult" ones get a penalty, that base roll should be for a task of moderate difficulty, which is not a challenge the character would run across very often ("routinely" should mean a big bonus, and "easy" must presumably be a lot less common than "routine"). However, better guidance to GM's as to the nature of tasks which can be accomplished without a roll, and which fall into the various categories, would be a valuable addition to the rules. Experienced Hero gamers/GM's have found their own level (often one where character skill rolls push into the 20's, though, which is not consistent with the RAW description of a 20 being "perhaps the greatest master of the Skill in history", "superheroes, gods, heroes of myth and supergeniuses"), but guidance for those starting Hero might help to ensure more of them stay with the system long enough to be "experienced Hero gamers" by helping guide the skill levels required to bring a vision of a "very skilled" character to reality in game results (that's a 14- roll, by the way - how many of your characters with a 14- would you describe as "a master with the Skill" based on in game results, rather than the rules as written?)

 

The sample characters don't even back this up. Let's ignore Supers (whose base stats mean they're rarely at a "well-versed" 12- skill or less, and Power Skills need to be above the "Greatest Master of all Time" level to have a shot at success). 13- skills are pretty common (an 18 stat is, which forces the issue), our starting character Wizard has a 19- magic skill (one more and he's "the greatest wizard" of all time? Again, power skills fit the model poorly.) With 12's and 13's the norm, players can surely be forgiven for falling into the view that these are nothing special, just "basic training" levels of skill - especially when starting characters in the other RPG's they are most likely to have played will have their skill rolls improve by +4, or +8, after they get a few months' game play.

 

Anyway, long diversion into the skill system aside...

 

' date=' but the end result is you still have tons of instances where the person with pathetic skill succeeds at the impossible, and the person with the awesome skill failing to do mundane uses.[/quote']

 

Which is simply a function of the flat curve - and the more common result.

 

Also, without the bell curve they are much less important as the odds don't change much with each step (with a d20 every skill point is a flat 5% increase in chance to hit. With 3d6 the benefit is relative to the target number (the closer you are to the target, the more benefit each +1 gives you, but as you get further away from the target (ie over or under) each point quickly diminishes in effect.

 

I played Fuzion/Power Core for a while, and it recommended a d10 system (with modifications to difficulty and such to compensate for the narrower range of possible results). I tried it for a while like that, but it seemed that skills levels became almost TOO important, with only a range of 1-10 you still flubbed easy tasks far too often (without really high skill levels), but there was also no reason to even try that truly difficult stuff, you had no chance of succeeding. I personally prefer 3d6 (i like bell curve resolutions. Stuff around your skill level is fairly easy to hit, with Exceptionally good or bad rolls being infrequent.

 

Well, let's assume a 50/50 chance of success, which means a 6+ on a d10, or 10- in Hero. Add a skill level, and your Hero odds rise to 62.5%, while your d10 odds go to 60%. Another level? d10 70%, 3d6 74.07%. Moving up, 80%, 90%, 100% vs 83.8%, 90.74%, 95.37%. The differences aren't all that meaningful until we get to the extremes.

 

Let's make it harder. 9- in Hero is 37.5%, and 7+ on d10 is 40%. Continue broadening the spread, and we get 25.93%/30%; 16.2%/20%; 9.26%/10%; 4.63%/0%

 

The odds of success for more difficult tasks drop off slower with the d10 until we get to the "nigh impossible" level. Actually, 1d10 seems very close to Hero odds of success across most of the scale, just a bit flatter. The difference in odds of success never exceeds 5%.

 

It also makes critical hit/miss rules (if you like those things) less disruptive to gaming (as they occur less often)

 

If you like them, do you want them to occur less often?

[psyber624]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

I cant remember if it was HERO or FUZION that made this comment (and I don't feel like flipping through books right now) but I have always used skill rolls exclusively in under pressure or competitive situations only. If a character is not competing with someone else through their use of skill (such as trying to find something which had been hidden with concealment) and can take a reasonable amount of time without undo pressure there is no roll required. They just succeed. You don't have to use skill rolls to adjudicate every mundane task. If you are trying something exceedingly difficult, or under a lot of pressure, then a roll may be required, but even then your easy/mundane tasks would have huge bonuses to succeed (and the chance of failure can be because they are interrupted.)

 

I will also say if you think the average person with a "Familiarity" with math can make change under pressure, you have never managed cashiers.......

 

Also, the "best in the world" values are a guideline applied to the REAL WORLD so that you can gauge how "relatively" skilled someone is. If you are talking supers or fantasy, real world limits are routinely surpassed so your Magic Skill: 20- may easily fail to be "the best Wizard in the world".

 

I will agree that the odds spread is not as bad as i thought it would be for d10. I hadnt compared the numbers, i just remember from when i played with d10 i didn't like it as much as 3d6. I need to remember to double check my math on stuff like that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

On the topic of skill autosuccess, we already have the PER rule that any roll that comes to a positive modifier is an automatic success out of combat. If we applied a similar rule to skills, that might fit the bill. To make this work, I'd suggest the following:

 

- ALL skills start at either 11- or characteristic roll

 

- Familiarity grants an 11- roll, but you take a -3 penalty (so a +4 bonus is needed for autosuccess - most "routine" tasks are therefore automatically successful, and a +3 "straddles routine and easy" needs an 11- roll - one increment of Extra Time = automatic success)

 

- Proficiency grants an 11- roll with a -1 penalty. That would mean a proficient user is automatically successful at many easy tasks (only a +1 bonus leaving no net bonus, requiring extra time for automatic success)

 

- A standard skill gives you CHAR Roll, but that does not count as a bonus. Every +1 you place in the skill is a bonus, so buying up the skill makes both success on a roll and automatic success easier.

 

- I'm torn on skill levels. On the one hand, treating them as a bonus will make autosuccess easier, and make that "3 overall skill levels" character a clear skill monkey. On the other hand, with +2 for a boost to 1 skill, and levels able to cover a wider array at a nominal cost increase, how often do people buy up individual skills rather than take, say, +2 with all interaction skills? If we made skill levels a roll enhancement, rather than a bonus, there would be an added benefit to the specialization of buying up individual skills.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

The problem with some stuff 'out of combat' is that it can still have disastrous consequences if you screw the pooch. Daredevil gets about by swinging around and doing acrobatic jumps and leaps between buildings. He tends not to fall to his death every so often between scenes. I like the idea of 11- (after modifiers) being auto success out of combat. That means that DD with at least 20 DEX and the acrobatics skill would normally be rolling a 13-: he would need modifiers (for weather or whatever) of at least -3 to not be able to automatically travel acrobatically out of combat. That seems fair. If it is that hairy out there, even getting about should be a dramatic event.

[John T]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Besides' date=' 2d9 has a range of 2-18, not 3-18. [/quote']

So does d8 + d10. But I've always been fine with 3d6, so the point for me is moot.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

So does d8 + d10. But I've always been fine with 3d6' date=' so the point for me is moot. [/quote']

 

d8 + d10 has a "flat spot" of equal chances on the results of 9, 10, and 11. And I fully understand about being moot to some people.

 

Part of my thought process has to do with Steve Long's request for suggestions for different roll systems/mechanics in the 6E development. IIRC, and to paraphrase, he said he was curious about a system that reduced the impact that just 4 levels would make on combat and skill rolls. 11- becomes 15-, or 62.5% becomes 95.37% (or conversely, a to hit roll could go down to 7- (16.2%).

 

With a less steeply belled curve, those 4 levels would have less of an impact than they did before.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

I suppose you could have a degree of success and failure chart. Perhaps, you could have four degrees of success and failure. If you succeed by 3, you have the full advantage of the success. If you succeed by less than 3, you get partial benefit of the success. If you fail by less than three, you get enough benefit to garner a bonus on the next roll. If you fail by 3 or more, it is a complete failure and there are no benefits. Of course this would not be applicable to all skills but I think it would be handy for a large number of skills.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

Part of my thought process has to do with Steve Long's request for suggestions for different roll systems/mechanics in the 6E development. IIRC, and to paraphrase, he said he was curious about a system that reduced the impact that just 4 levels would make on combat and skill rolls. 11- becomes 15-, or 62.5% becomes 95.37% (or conversely, a to hit roll could go down to 7- (16.2%).

 

With a less steeply belled curve, those 4 levels would have less of an impact than they did before.

 

I did some comparisons at AnyDice. 2d6+d24 works pretty well for minimizing the impact of 4 levels, but a d24 is esoteric even by gamer standards. 2d6+d6*4 should work almost as well, but calculating that extra die every time will slow the game down.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Playing around with the rules...

 

How much impact one (or four) levels has on a combat (or other test of skills) is a matter of granularity. 3d6 has a lot to recommend it, when everything is reasonably balanced, and this is often particularly problematic in combat, because the GM often has less control over the numbers. OTOH, there is more than one way to skin a cat, as we have proved in the past, so being unable to hit the DCV 20 speedster may not matter if you can throw a tank at him because you are then only aiming at DCV 3.

 

If you look at the sample characters in 6e, certainly the superhero ones, the attainable CVs are all pretty similar.

 

We don't actually need a huge range if the values we are playing with are reasonably similar. This being Hero, though, someone is going to want to build off the top end of the scale and someone is going to want to drop below any recommended minimum.