Installing a Floor in the House (Rules)

[Matthias777]

I've discussed this with a couple of you, and the consensus so far seems very positive, but I figured I'd put it out there for the entire forum to remark on.

Here's the basic premise: I have been looking for a way to improve dice "stability" without compromising the randomness of the dice. This would have the added benefit of strengthening the role that the Wild Die plays.

I've always thought that the dice had too great a range on the bottom end. Conceivably, someone rolling 6D could roll a six, someone rolling 10D could roll a ten, and someone rolling 12D could roll a twelve. This seems rather silly, not just for skills, but especially when you're talking about hull die codes and the like. Take into consideration that a one on the Wild Die could reduce a total further (subtract the 1 on the Wild Die and the highest die from the total), and someone could conceivably roll 6D and get a four.

We can always play with the upper end of dice ranges, by increasing the number of dice rolled. That solution has never been a hard one. But while increasing the number of dice adds to the upper range in increments of six, it only adds to the lower range in increments of one, increasing the disparity between the opposite ends of the possible totals. Even changing the actual type (sides) of dice used doesn't fix this problem. We don't have a way of raising the "floor" on rolls without disproportionately increasing the "ceiling".

I propose putting a limit on how poorly a given die code can roll. I do not want to eliminate the possibility of bad rolls for a given die code, just absurdly atrocious ones. Really bad rolls should be a product of chance (the Wild Die), not a shortcoming of the system. I finally figured out a way that is both easy to implement, and effective at giving stability to the dice ranges without eliminating "regular" bad rolls.

For any given die code, there is a set minimum that the roll can total before the aftereffects of a 1 or a 6 on the Wild Die are taken into account. Call it a minimum, a floor, a surety (my favorite), whatever. So that one does not have to continually refer to a chart in order to check to see what the minimum is, you'd begin writing die codes with the minimum at the end. For instance, you'd write 3D as 3D(5), and 5D+2 as 5D+2(13). The method for determining a die code's minimum is thus:

Starting at 3D, the minimum is 5. There is no minimum enforced for die codes of less than 3D. If you roll 2D and get a 2, that's what you get. A minimum of 5 for a die code of 3D means that if you roll 3D and get a 2[WD], 1, 1, it counts as a 5 instead of a 4. Since the minimum is enforced before the aftereffects of the Wild Die are taken into an account, let's show what happens when someone rolls a one on the Wild Die and the Gamemaster decides to subtract the Wild Die and the highest die from the total. As always, a GM could choose to either have the 1 on the Wild Die cause a complication, add the total up normally, or do as we're about to do and subtract both the Wild Die and the highest die from the total. A roll of 3D resulting in a 1[WD], 2, 1 would then count as a 2 (minimum of 5 - 1[WD] - 2 = 2).

So, what about other die codes? With each pip increment, the minimum goes up by one as well. Here's a breakdown showing this progression:




I feel pretty satisfied with this so far. I know of one at least one GM who would like to see an online dice roller set up to make rolls based on my method; if anyone has any idea how to do that, please let me know.
_________________
Arek | Kage

[Bren]

In the interest of full disclosure: (1) I don't see the low rolls as a frequent enough problem to want significantly change the simple dice roll system of D6 to find a correction. (2) In most cases the use of CPs and FPs fix the problem when and if it arises. (3) The only exception to this is for hull values for vehicles where (2) does not apply and for that I would allow CPs to be used anyway or relying on GM fiat rather than blowing up a ship full of PCs on a single bad hull roll.

So the "Range" and "Orig. Range" columns ignore the effects of the wild die, right? I think it would be beneficial to also include the floor of the range including the effects of the wild die since this strongly effects your effective floor, especially at low levels.

For example, rolling 3D the original minimum, including subtractions for the wild die, is a 1. Here we assume a 1 on the wild die and a 1 on at least one other die. This is the same minimum as your floor. If you roll 1[WD], 3, 1 you get the minimum of 5 subtracting 1 and 3 you end up with a 1.* So the only difference in the minimum with wild die total is on a roll of 1[WD], 2, 1 = 2 or 1[WD], 1, 2 = 3.

So there is little or no effect when the wild die is a 1 and since the odds of rolling below a 5 without getting 1 on the wild die are about 1%, this seems to add a significant extra complication for marginal results on edge cases.

If you wanted to use this floor or surety, an online dice roller would be preferable to a manual implementation. That pushes the extra complication onto the programmer rather than the GM or player. However you are still left with the loss of intuition about likely results for die rolls.

In conclusion, my impression at first glance is that this floor or surety adds some extra machinery and removes the intuitive result of rolling D6s by introducing a floor that sometimes has an effect (and sometimes does not). It seems more trouble than it is worth to me, but clearly YMMV.


* Here I assume a roll of 1[WD], 4 (or higher), 1 would default to the original rule for a total of 1 rather than following your new rule of 5 -1 -4 (or more) which would result in a zero or even a negative total.

[garhkal]

This sounds a little like the D20's system of 'taking ten' where you rather than roll, accept a bare minimum (more close to moderate roll)...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[jmanski]

It seems like a lot of work for little gain. If you look at 4d, for example: there are 1296 different combinations of numbers. By taking away 4, 5, 6, and 7 you are eliminating 35 combinations (out of the 1296).

That said, why take away those low numbers? Everyone fails at something at some point, and fear of failure adds tension.

In D6 you should actually roll in the middle of the number set the vast majority of the time (80.5% for the middle 3 on the die). With 4d, you should roll 10-18 1044 out of 1296 times.

Maybe the wild die is actually the problem? Remember that according to RAW, a 1 on the wild die does not have to be a failure or removal of dice.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Esoomian]

I've actually considered something similar but only for droids.

I was thinking that a droid programed to do something should be able perform that task pretty much identically every time.

For every two dice a droid has in a skill it is assumed to have rolled a five so a droid with 4D+2 in a skill would roll 12 every time. Depending on how difficult the task is the droid will either succeed or fail.

I haven't put this into practice yet and I'm still working out other possibilities (such as potentially rolling a skill once and then setting that as the baseline until the skill is increased) but I found the idea interesting.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[garhkal]

Hows about you can take half your D pool for an auto 3 on the die..

Still no going to get you those high totals, but makes the lower stuff more achievable consistently.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Bren]

[jmanski]

"Taking 3" could be like taking 10 in d20. That would solve a lot of problems pretty easily.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Azai]

I like the idea, I mean I don't like seeing professional skills with knowledge, or perception rolling really low. Even combat skills, I feel like players do -earn- that skill and shouldn't have to worry about their dice just screwing them.

That should be my job . At least impose penalties, higher difficulties, or stronger enemies.

Though I feel like this could be more keeping track. I always played with the idea that say if you have 6D in a skill you couldn't say, get lower then Easy. Or something like that.

[Matthias777]

[Matthias777]

[Bren]

[Matthias777]

[Bren]