I have seen a similar mechanic for accumulating successes (where rolling 1-2 on a d6 gave you a negative, and rolling 5-6 gave you a positive). In general, I like it.
You could do it so that after rolling 2 tens, the player rolls again and adds 20 if the result of the second set is positive and subtracts 20 if the result of the second set is negative.
You run into some problems with accumulated successes - they don't scale well either high or low. With Fudge the skill number tends to limit the upper scale of success aritificially. I want to limit success by result possibilities, not die roll. In some cases, like trying to jump a pit, having a success limit is good. In other cases it often cuts off an area of probability at high levels
( ... )
The Aunt May vs. Hulk Hogan thing used to bother me more than it does now. A while back it occurred to me that Aunt May cannot in fact kill Hulk Hogan with a .22, or any other kind of gun, really, because the dramatic premise of the comic literally does not allow for it, and nor would the dramatic premise of most heroic (much less super-heroic) games.
Resolution system follows dramatic premise in a game. For Twilight 2000, the hit roll system should make it very likely to miss (making hit rolls very streaky and luck-based), while the damage resolution system should result in almost arbitrarily lethal wounds from even the least effective weapons. However, such a system would be utterly inappropriate for any kind of heroic or super-heroic game where characters and villains are pitted against each other within a more epic, dramatic premise, and where concepts like 'experience' and 'level' are expected to have a meaningful impact.
I think Aunt May and Hulk Hogan are just examples and do not necessarily imply that we are playing a heroic game. In fact, you can have a very gritty and harsh superhero-themed game (see the base Wild Talents rules, for example).
Yeah. This system works very elegantly in a mathematical sense. However, the fact that 50% of your rolls are not just below average but actually negative really does feel like a visceral lose psychologically. It even bothers *me*, and I'm generally very hard-headed about game math.
The two main reasons to go with this kind of system (in my mind) are to generate an unlimited 'range of engagement' - in other words your system can compare ANY two numbers, no matter how far apart; and to deal with values which misbehave as they become extreme and start behaving asymptotically (such as AC values in D&D).
However, I find that mathematically, the auto-success/auto-fail cap system on a d20 gets you pretty much the same effect (sometimes better...) with much simpler resolution. Were we playing a computer game, I'd most certainly go with the more elegant model, but for table top I've explored many systems and tend to keep coming back to d20 (the die, not the system) as the best combination of simplicity vs. granularity.
I'm uncertain about the yatzee mechanics you threw in there since last time we discussed the +/-10 thing...
They'll certainly generate 'out of bounds' results, but I find myself fighting against those kinds of results more often than not as a GM, so I'm not sure that would add any attraction to me for the system.
I think what you want is: Skill/Ability + 1D10 - 1D10 against a Target/Difficulty Number or an opponent, with the dice being "zero-based" (the "0" or "10" is counted as zero) and independently open-ended or "exploding", i.e. a 9 means you roll another die of the same "type".
This results in this "probability distribution": http://anydice.com/?dice=d10e5h-d10e5h (Not using "zero-based" dice results in bad "bumps" in the "curve".)
Comments 12
In general, I like it.
You could do it so that after rolling 2 tens, the player rolls again and adds 20 if the result of the second set is positive and subtracts 20 if the result of the second set is negative.
Reply
I was going to post this. Fudge, right?
Reply
Reply
Be well.
Reply
Reply
Resolution system follows dramatic premise in a game. For Twilight 2000, the hit roll system should make it very likely to miss (making hit rolls very streaky and luck-based), while the damage resolution system should result in almost arbitrarily lethal wounds from even the least effective weapons. However, such a system would be utterly inappropriate for any kind of heroic or super-heroic game where characters and villains are pitted against each other within a more epic, dramatic premise, and where concepts like 'experience' and 'level' are expected to have a meaningful impact.
Reply
Reply
As an aside, I have enjoyed the shadowrun (4th ed) system, but there is something pleasing about rolling lots of dice :)
Reply
The two main reasons to go with this kind of system (in my mind) are to generate an unlimited 'range of engagement' - in other words your system can compare ANY two numbers, no matter how far apart; and to deal with values which misbehave as they become extreme and start behaving asymptotically (such as AC values in D&D).
However, I find that mathematically, the auto-success/auto-fail cap system on a d20 gets you pretty much the same effect (sometimes better...) with much simpler resolution. Were we playing a computer game, I'd most certainly go with the more elegant model, but for table top I've explored many systems and tend to keep coming back to d20 (the die, not the system) as the best combination of simplicity vs. granularity.
Reply
They'll certainly generate 'out of bounds' results, but I find myself fighting against those kinds of results more often than not as a GM, so I'm not sure that would add any attraction to me for the system.
Reply
This results in this "probability distribution": http://anydice.com/?dice=d10e5h-d10e5h
(Not using "zero-based" dice results in bad "bumps" in the "curve".)
AFAIK this is the mechanic in Two-Fisted Tales (http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=46) and I've been thinking of using it in my own rules.
Reply
Leave a comment