The Gaming Den

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Still, I recognize your criticism about a smooth curve and offer a counter-proposal:
http://anydice.com/program/2c7d

I recognize your counter-proposal, and offer a counter-counter-proposal:
http://anydice.com/program/2c80

Uses only 12 dice where yours uses 15. The formula is ultra-simple too: if you have more than 4 Dicepool-dice, trade them out for d3s at a 3:1 ratio until you have 4 or fewer Dicepool-dice.

PhoneLobster wrote: Go ahead WHAT justifies those odds in that circumstance?

I have no idea. But remember, the people who have those microscopic chances are the gods, not the street urchins.

Foxwarrior wrote:I recognize your counter-proposal, and offer a counter-counter-proposal:

Do you have anything where the formula doesn't change so frequently? I know my original proposal had switchovers every 3 levels, but, people not just from that board says that it's still too much mental reconfiguration just to roll a dice. I think something like 5 or 6 die before doing a pool reconfiguration would be better.

Also, it may not be possible, but is there a way to weigh the pool such that the actual TN dice aren't overwhelmed by the piles of d3s? It's a petty complaint, but, if the straight hit/miss comparison is minor compared to the d3s, it feels more like bell curve rolling than dicepools.

I don't know about you but in the era of laptops and smarphones for our shadowrun games we switch over to digital rollers, often built into the character sheets.

I appreciate the effort to reduce dicepool size, but is it really worth it? Since the biggest downside of dicepool systems is that its hard to throw 15+ dice, and a digital roller solves that handily.

I know plenty of non-nerds who still gleefully play other traditional games, including board games.

While they'll accept throwing a d20 or 8 d6s or even 3d6 and adding up the dice, as soon as you mention putting something into a calculator or smartphone their eyes will glaze over.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Do you have anything where the formula doesn't change so frequently? I know my original proposal had switchovers every 3 levels, but, people not just from that board says that it's still too much mental reconfiguration just to roll a dice. I think something like 5 or 6 die before doing a pool reconfiguration would be better.

Also, it may not be possible, but is there a way to weigh the pool such that the actual TN dice aren't overwhelmed by the piles of d3s? It's a petty complaint, but, if the straight hit/miss comparison is minor compared to the d3s, it feels more like bell curve rolling than dicepools.

Well, each d3 serves as a replacement for 3 TN dice. This inevitably means that it you use more d3s than TN dice, then the TN dice will be pretty insignificant. It's not possible to use more than 4 dice per pool reconfiguration if you want to make the chance of rolling maximum always decrease, if you're using d6s for both kinds of die, since you can't more than quarter the number of the highest value rolled by comparison with a die that gets its highest value on four sides.

And a dicepool is a kind of bell curved rolling mechanism.

I've considered PhoneLobster's argument, though, and I've arrived at the conclusion that there's a more important feature of the curve than a maximum roll that always decreases in probability: the chance that you roll at least some number should never decrease; improving from Rank X to Rank X+1 should never make you less likely to succeed at DC Y tasks.

For that purpose, and to increase the number of TN dice traded per Bell die, I present http://anydice.com/program/2c8d

Instead of trading 3 TN dice for 1 d3, you trade 6 TN dice for 1d6+1, and count rolls of 1 as 2.

*total (temporary) topic switch ('cause my question doesn't warrant its own thread)*

Does it strike anyone here that a d20 is a little much for Initiative checks? It just seems to me to be more finely granulated than is necessary (and gratuitously so).
Wouldn't a d10 or d12 be more than sufficient? Of course, if that change were made, you'd basically have to cut initiative bonuses in half (for the obvious reason of proportionality).

Thoughts?

I think the d20 is a little much for most things. My feeling the more I've tested my own material is that a 20 point RNG feels unfriendly to some people. A d12 is about the right size for most things I think. Lots of people have a hard time with quick math and asking them to add a +9 to their d20 roll of 17 is a definite negative for them in a way that adding a +6 to their d12 roll of 8 wouldn't be.

The literal point of a d20 is so you can have Chain & Shield be different to Plate, which is different to Plate & Shield. If you don't want that level of detail, you don't want a d20.

Games with just light/medium/heavy armours could use a d6 just fine, you'd get +1 to hit every three levels (or just cut your 20-level game down to 6).

@Initiative, started as d6 so you could do semi-interesting stuff on ties. Went to d10 because the d10 wasn't getting enough love or something. Went to d20 because d20 MOTHERFUCKERS. Check out the d20 turning table, it's terrible and does not work, but at least you roll a d20 on it!


But also, getting +Dex when that's anywhere from -1 to +7 on your going first check means you want a d20. You can do away with the Dex bonus of course, older editions never used it, other than to counteract penalties in some cases.

tussock wrote:But also, getting +Dex when that's anywhere from -1 to +7 on your going first check means you want a d20.

Why. Why should we want someone with a Dexterity of 25 (a +7) to lose on the draw to an average man ever. Nevermind one out of 5 times. A Dex of 25 is the Dex score of a PC who rolled maximum dexterity, chose a +2 dex race, then put every ability point they've ever earned into Dexterity. Why we want that character to only beat an untrained peasant 80% of the time is beyond me.

deanruel87 wrote:

tussock wrote:But also, getting +Dex when that's anywhere from -1 to +7 on your going first check means you want a d20.

Why. Why should we want someone with a Dexterity of 25 (a +7) to lose on the draw to an average man ever. Nevermind one out of 5 times. A Dex of 25 is the Dex score of a PC who rolled maximum dexterity, chose a +2 dex race, then put every ability point they've ever earned into Dexterity. Why we want that character to only beat an untrained peasant 80% of the time is beyond me.

Because sometimes you're the untrained peasant.

The main issue I have with Initiative, specifically, using the d20 is the completely unnecessary range of differences. Even assuming = initiative modifiers (or perhaps especially), a 20 point gap between initiative counts is just gratuitous, and serves zero function or purpose. If your initiative modifier is > 10 points higher than the other guy's, then you're damn right you should be going first. If you've spent that many resources on trying to go first, then it should just happen -- that's resources that you could have spent elsewhere to other awesome things.

I can wrap my mind around needing a d20 for other things (given the design paradigm of D&D); and, in a lot of ways, I like it. But just to get turn order? GTFO.

Personally I think turn order shouldn't be on a d20, and frankly probably shouldn't really be on a roll based mechanic at all. Definitely not on one that rolled every turn, or individually for every single goblin in a goblin horde.

It's a fairly obvious point to remove randomization for streamlining and other mechanical improvements. The potential for things you could do in a flat no roll alternative for surprise phase mechanics, (pseudo) simultaneous resolution or some sort of attempt to de-bullshitify "weapon speed" type speed modifiers by action type are ALL improved by removing the dice roll.

wotmaniac wrote:The main issue I have with Initiative, specifically, using the d20 is the completely unnecessary range of differences. Even assuming = initiative modifiers (or perhaps especially), a 20 point gap between initiative counts is just gratuitous, and serves zero function or purpose. If your initiative modifier is > 10 points higher than the other guy's, then you're damn right you should be going first. If you've spent that many resources on trying to go first, then it should just happen -- that's resources that you could have spent elsewhere to other awesome things.

I can wrap my mind around needing a d20 for other things (given the design paradigm of D&D); and, in a lot of ways, I like it. But just to get turn order? GTFO.

I think the d20 is used for a couple reasons:

1) Most other rolls are made with a d20.
2) It reduces the number of ties you get.

The intro module I played for the prerevision Star Wars (d20) RPG (the thing that actually got me into RPGs) had initiative fixed as 10+modifier. (presumably with d20 roll-offs for ties, I don't remember)

Cyberzombie wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:The main issue I have with Initiative, specifically, using the d20 is the completely unnecessary range of differences. Even assuming = initiative modifiers (or perhaps especially), a 20 point gap between initiative counts is just gratuitous, and serves zero function or purpose. If your initiative modifier is > 10 points higher than the other guy's, then you're damn right you should be going first. If you've spent that many resources on trying to go first, then it should just happen -- that's resources that you could have spent elsewhere to other awesome things.

I can wrap my mind around needing a d20 for other things (given the design paradigm of D&D); and, in a lot of ways, I like it. But just to get turn order? GTFO.

I think the d20 is used for a couple reasons:

1) Most other rolls are made with a d20.
2) It reduces the number of ties you get.

So, it works for other things, so it obviously must be the best choice for initiative as well?
Also, not only are ties trivially easy to adjudicate, they still happen relatively frequently. As such, I've long used the following tie-breaker system:
1) highest modifier,
2) highest dex mod
3) action type + in-fiction conditions (e.g., standard action goes before full-round action; full-attack goes before a charge, because the charge requires you to first move then attack)
3a) who's actually for real ready to take there action right now, vs. who still is in the decision-making process?
4) simultaneous resolution.
From experience, this takes no more time than re-rolling; and sometimes it's quicker (especially when it's done within the first 2 steps).

Well keep in mind that a higher initiative means you'll be playing more.
And not only will you be getting more turns, you'll also get more meaningful turns.

ishy wrote:Well keep in mind that a higher initiative means you'll be playing more.
And not only will you be getting more turns, you'll also get more meaningful turns.

That seems a bit tautological .... not sure what the point is in relation to d12-vs-d20.

wotmaniac wrote:

ishy wrote:Well keep in mind that a higher initiative means you'll be playing more.
And not only will you be getting more turns, you'll also get more meaningful turns.

That seems a bit tautological .... not sure what the point is in relation to d12-vs-d20.

Shrinking the dice means if you have modifiers, initiative gets more deterministic which can be a bad thing for his reasons. If it's rocket launcher tag like 3.x tends to be, those people who go after the first few guys may not even get a turn since everyone will be dead/disabled/dominated.

Take PhoneLobster's for example of 'no rolls for initiative' as a concept. Dude A always goes first. If he finishes every combat on his turn like a 3.x Wizard, players B, C and D never get to play in combat.

I honestly think the d20 is actually a good idea for initiative in 3.x because it's one of the few d20 rolls that it's actually somewhat difficult to get off the RNG.

I do not want to use a 4-step comparison system where I drag in more new numbers to figure out who goes first. So that's why ties are bad.

Also it's not that d20 is good because it's used often, it's just that you're more likely to have a d20 on hand than a d12, since you plan to use it for attacks and saves and stuff.

You'll still need a tie-breaker preeeeetty often when you use a d20 for initiative. If you have five combatants with the same initiative bonus, there's a 40% chance every combat that there'll be a tie. If they have different bonuses, the odds drop, but they don't become negligible.

...You Lost Me wrote:I do not want to use a 4-step comparison system where I drag in more new numbers to figure out who goes first. So that's why ties are bad.

Also it's not that d20 is good because it's used often, it's just that you're more likely to have a d20 on hand than a d12, since you plan to use it for attacks and saves and stuff.

I don't see how using existing numbers is "dragging" anything in.
I use virtually the same system as wotmaniac.

My players automatically compare init-mod if they tie.
If that's a the same, they move to dex mod.
Actual Dex score is after that, for me, though.

Typically it's resolved by then.

John Magnum wrote:You'll still need a tie-breaker preeeeetty often when you use a d20 for initiative. If you have five combatants with the same initiative bonus, there's a 40% chance every combat that there'll be a tie. If they have different bonuses, the odds drop, but they don't become negligible.

Well keep in mind that many ties don't matter if they occur on the same side. So two PCs tying, you just let the PCs decide who goes first (they can always delay after all to change the order). Same with two monsters.

It's only when you get a tie between team monster and team PC, and often there I simply settle it with a single 50/50 die roll rather than getting into extra comparisons.

Comparisons take too much time in my opinion and are largely unnecessary.

If you have one monster and four PCs, and they all have the same init bonus, then the odds of getting a monster/PC init tie are a little under 20%. Two monsters and four PCs with all the same init bonuses, the odds are just over a third.

Unfortunately I don't know what the combinatorics would really be to do questions with heterogeneous init bonuses, but I don't think you get absolutely massive dropoffs. So you'll still need SOME tiebreaker, since even monster/PC ties will come up pretty often. But a coin flip or something is probably a fast enough way to do it.

John Magnum wrote:If you have one monster and four PCs, and they all have the same init bonus, then the odds of getting a monster/PC init tie are a little under 20%. Two monsters and four PCs with all the same init bonuses, the odds are just over a third.

Yeah you will always have ties, it's just that a d20 ties half as much as a d10. It's easy to remember because it's the d20 system. So why not use it?

I don't have anything against using a d20, it's just that basic Birthday Problem considerations mean it's still not that great as a tiebreaker.