tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post6755935947171389512..comments2024-02-27T01:17:39.925-08:00Comments on The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms: Where Unified Rolls Go WrongTalysmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02162328521343832412noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-83189261353955002792015-04-28T10:58:55.130-07:002015-04-28T10:58:55.130-07:00And MUCH worse than roll under, no adding necessar...And MUCH worse than roll under, no adding necessary.Talysmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162328521343832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-58952955565309176952015-04-28T03:27:34.512-07:002015-04-28T03:27:34.512-07:00d100 + ability > 100 is probably one of the lea...d100 + ability > 100 is probably one of the least fun dice mechanics I can think of. It's terrible for anyone even remotely dyscalculic, and much slower than roll and add with just about any smaller dice type.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-47062617248700570582015-01-11T08:57:12.833-08:002015-01-11T08:57:12.833-08:00Glad to have you back, sir ! Glad to have you back, sir ! porphyre77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07620350717226228078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-4878228819130799402015-01-10T15:32:24.459-08:002015-01-10T15:32:24.459-08:00Yeah, "diverse" is a way better word for...Yeah, "diverse" is a way better word for what I was trying to say. But as a DM I can appreciate complexity, too. Like that text-to-dungeon idea you had some time back (which was inspiring, by the way ...).<br /><br />But it has to make sense in the greater context of a system (like you say, the system already has ability scores able to fulfill that function, so why not use them) and what you write about those passive checks sure sounds like bad design.Jens D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18394303166081684904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-16965269033478548022015-01-10T13:14:29.479-08:002015-01-10T13:14:29.479-08:00I agree with making a distinction between "ru...I agree with making a distinction between "rules for players" and "rules for the GM", although in my case, I prefer hardly any player rules, and a bundle of different reusable mechanics for the GM... but not necessarily more complex. More diverse in the results, definitely, which may be what you intended by "a higher complexity in the results".<br /><br />I want to stress that my intention, here, is not to argue the merits of roll high vs. roll low, but to say that the freedom to choose which is appropriate, combined with a desire for the simplest mechanic that gives the kind of results I want, is better than a slavish devotion to the unified core mechanic ideal. Especially when sticking to the unified mechanic results in unnecessary complexity.<br /><br />The passive checks in 5e, again, are a prime example. The game designers wanted a static number to compare to a difficulty rating, for detection tests. Characters already have ability scores, but using those as a static number didn't fit the preconceived notion that ability scores should add (Ability Score -10)/2 to some number, so they went with calculating passive check numbers, basically adding extra stats to keep track of. Yeah, a character with Wisdom 3 might do better with a passive wisdom check of 6, but you could also just use lower wisdom check DCs when designing adventures. Talysmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162328521343832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-56425330574778288832015-01-10T03:23:52.859-08:002015-01-10T03:23:52.859-08:00As you say in the beginning, both approaches have ...As you say in the beginning, both approaches have reason to exist and in most cases it comes down to a matter of taste. I tend to see this from another perspective, though. I believe a separation can be made between the rules important for the players and the rules important for the DM. Some of my players, for instance, are not very familiar with the rules of the games we play. I don't think they need to be, but that's not the point. It's rather that a unified approach for things that come up often during play is much easier to grasp and remember than lots of fiddly bits. So a rule of "high rolls are always good" has merit in that case. I think Cthulhu is a good example for this.<br /><br />The DM of a game, on the other hand, has a different approach to a system (for one, he should know it) and has different needs to make it work, so rules with a higher complexity in the results are of much higher value for the game from that point of view.<br /><br />(Btw., in our D&D game we used for ability and skill checks the formula (ability score [+skill bonus] vs. difficulty) for exactly the reasons I mentioned above, as "D20, roll high" applied to 90 % of what was needed at the table from a players perspective: checks, saves and attacks.)Jens D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18394303166081684904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-5984820008681579822015-01-10T03:15:10.278-08:002015-01-10T03:15:10.278-08:00It's funny, I used to be in favor of unified m...It's funny, I used to be in favor of unified mechanics 'cause it seemed to make things easier, but I've come to realize that doing some things differently can actually be more intuitive. I also realized that some of my favorite stuff from 3.0 was actually those elements that didn't conform to the unified mechanic. Go figure<br /><br />One Mechanic to Rule Them All is a mistake, but it can be a good idea to recycle mechanics sometimes. One thing I loved in 3e was how flexible it could be (though it seemed as though nobody utilized its full potential). Swapping around ranks and abilities was a simple way to make ad hoc rulings and get a lot of mileage out of the skill system. All those synergy bonuses they added in 3.5 would've been better handled that way. Of course, you did have the issue of chance, experience or natural ability always having the same weight no matter what you were doing, and it wasn't always that unified when you consider some of the special rules they had for interpreting results<br /><br />Also, I need to find time to pore over those Ready Ref Sheets. I got 'em for Christmas, and it looks like there's a lot of cool stuff in there. Been working twelves, though, and my game-reading's been restricted to <i>Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming</i>Holly Oatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703437987958922954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-81078003238781851202015-01-09T21:03:20.239-08:002015-01-09T21:03:20.239-08:00Yeah... But why do it?Yeah... But why do it?Talysmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162328521343832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-70761432197805729062015-01-09T20:19:01.683-08:002015-01-09T20:19:01.683-08:00Anything can be made roll high is "better&quo...Anything can be made roll high is "better".<br /><br />d100 under ability can be d100+ability > 100. Similar d20 under ability can be d20+ability > 20.Norman J. Harman Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01319655075997712313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7239577512598038009.post-78590422368803023472015-01-09T14:51:01.894-08:002015-01-09T14:51:01.894-08:00I'm interested in this topic and the discussio...I'm interested in this topic and the discussion that occurs because of your post.The Angry Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17075199616086876028noreply@blogger.com