| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 10:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | A little off-topic, I think I also like these numbers for things like Skill (Damage) Bonus, something like, "For every 7 points above the difficulty number add +1d6 to a resulting damage roll, or apply as a bonus/penalty for a round." It would fall somewhere between the two variants in Rules of Engagement. A +2D difference in a skill die code would loosely translate into +1D bonus in damage or other other derived effect. |
Instead of the numbers, in my house rules overhaul, for extra effects I compare to what difficultly their result would have hit - i.e. what difficulty level...
Measure of Success
For example, if the difficulty of the task was Easy, and they rolled well enough for Moderate level difficutly- they got "1 over".
I call it the "Measure of Success" (later versions of d6 and its derivatives call this Result Points, Effect Value or a Raise).
For each measure of success over, I give a bonus - if applicable (not everything is).
Normalized Difficulty Ranges
Now, to help with this - I usually refer to my difficulties in my house rules as the difficulty level;
DL1 - Very Easy
DL2 - Easy
DL3 - Moderate
DL4 - Difficult
etc.
Now, my ranges are consistent between levels (there is no jump later, I just hare more levels - but that is a bit off topic).
Since that is the case - it is even easier (that and when adjusting,I have other mechanisms - I don't change the ranges).
So, when something is DL3 (moderate) and they roll really well, it is very fast to see they would have got DL5, and that is 2 levels over.
They roll- and say "I hit DL3" - which is really fast.
I know the difficulty (many times the players do too) and I can apply the measure of success based on their roll.
Measure of Failure
Now, this also works quickly for when they fail too - as some cases - (like in some opposed checks, etc.) how much a roll fails can matter. Again, because my ranges are consistent and we go by the levels - it is fast.
the "I hit a 3" if the difficulty was level DL5 - Very Difficult, I know that they failed by two levels (again, if applicable - like in haggling prices, or how long a poison may last etc.).
Other Rule Benefits
This also means, that in a LOT of the charts and tables in the game - where the results scale - I can just use a simple mechanic instead of listing an entire table - and players can often remember this a lot easier (I redid a lot of skills and force powers for consistency).
For example - for some ability it might say "On success this grants at 2D bonus, with and additional 1D for each measure of success" or whatever.
(for things that scale preportionally) or
"this ability grants a +2D bonus, with an additional +1pip for each Measure of Success". For things that scale much less. Again, no chart, or long paragarph (if they got a moderate, it is 1D+1, if they got ....etc.).
Or the difficultly level determination can scale easily as well
Or "when lifting objects with telekinesis it is +1DL for each extra 10kg" or what ever. Again - where the gm feels it is linear.
(I can write +1DL as an abbreviation for something that increases difficulty one level - a useful reference).
Use what works...
Now - yes, everyone can do other math- but my group (which has been using this for almost two years) really likes it - as it is fast and consistent. Do you need my abbreviations to do the bonus per level - no, not at all. But I have found that just using the levels - instead of doing the math is much faster.
Anyway - using the difficulty level - is an easy way - to not have to compare the numbers - but every group will find what works for them...
best of luck in your game.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2023 2:47 am Post subject: Re: Redefining Difficulty Levels (number ranges) |
|
|
Crimson Red, welcome back to the land of the living (actively posting as opposed to only lurking). It's been a long time!
| Quote: | DIFFICULTY NUMBERS
....1-3. Very Easy
....4-7. Easy
. 8-14. Moderate
15-21. Difficult
22-28. Very Difficult
29-35. Heroic
36-42. Heroic+7 |
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill, how does this system compare to the Open D6 Difficulties, where the spread for Very Difficult and Heroic is reduced from 10 to 5, with Legendary replacing Heroic at the 31+ mark? |
I think I may have (finally) figured out what you were asking back then. How does my difficulty ranges chart progress beyond the chart? I don't see that I ever explicitly stated that in this thread, so I guess I (incorrectly) presumed that would be easy to extrapolate from the chart.
My chart progresses by 7s to continue the pattern of every range starting with Easy. Like so:
...
29-35. Heroic
36-42. Heroic+7
43-49. Heroic+14
50-56. Heroic+21
...
And so on. To do anything else would fly in the face of the whole purpose for making this change in the first place, to have the difficulties directly correspond to dice roll averages (2D = 7). The "+X" number after the word "Heroic" in the difficulty range applies to both the min and max of the Heroic range numbers (and the max of every range is a multiple of 7, starting with Easy). But to be honest, I personally almost never even have base difficulties above Heroic anyway. I really only added the "Heroic+7" to the chart to start the continuing pattern off just in case anyone wanted to use this and go above Heroic.
I'm sorry for not stating all that more plainly.
| Crimson_red wrote: | I really like this change to number ranges, it appears to fix everything from the RAW number ranges that rubbed me the wrong way simply by accounting for how d6 behave. I suspect remembering "Up to 3/7/14/21/28/+7" is just as easy/easier to remember than "Up to 5/10/15/20/30/+10," especially if someone has played any notable number of games that used d6 in play (Your game uses pairs of d6? I Bet you something happens on a '7' . . . like rolling a '7' on a pair of d6, it may not be a good bet, but it is the best bet).
Whill, it appears you were using this change four years after you first posted it, if so, are you still using now? Do you have any addition observations/thoughts/experiences you might share after using these numbers? |
I've used this for every adventure I've ran since I posted this thread (and beforehand I had ran some mock scenarios to playtest it). I don't really have many additional insights or feelings other than confirmation that this was the right change to make. It has made planning challenge levels of adventures because the difficulties directly correspond to dice roll averages (before factoring in the wild die).
I stand firmly by my original premise that the game's creators only went with 5s and 10s in the published difficulty chart before they felt that would be the easiest to remember, and they wanted a system that minimized referring to charts as much as possible in game play. In my experience, remembering VE is 1-3 and the rest have max ranges as multiples of 7s is only slightly more difficult than 5s, but the boon gained from the direct correspondence of difficulties to dice roll averages outweighs it. The very rare occasions where a player stumbled while attempting to estimate his odds at succeeding at something (or how many MAPs he could afford, etc.) because there is always myself or another player to jump in to assist. One player did jot the chart down on his notes and did not at all seem inconvenienced by quick glances to it during the game.
When I explain the reasoning for the change, players always seem to understand and agree with it. I only run into resistance when talking about it with other GMs who feel their existing way of doing it is better.
| Crimson_red wrote: | | Has anyone else been using Whill's Number Ranges, and have you any additional insights/feelings? |
Great question. Has anyone else reading this used this system and have any feedback they would like to share?
| Crimson_red wrote: | | A little off-topic, I think I also like these numbers for things like Skill (Damage) Bonus, something like, "For every 7 points above the difficulty number add +1d6 to a resulting damage roll, or apply as a bonus/penalty for a round." It would fall somewhere between the two variants in Rules of Engagement. A +2D difference in a skill die code would loosely translate into +1D bonus in damage or other other derived effect. |
Game Option: Skill Damage Bonus
I did use my difficulty ranges as an inspiration for my skill damage bonus, but I decided to round the 3.5 to 4 because I felt that rounding down (+1 to damage for every +3 rolled over the difficulty) was too harsh in my already slightly deadlier house Damage system. And I only apply the damage bonus to attacks from important characters (non-mooks).
Your proposal of +1D (3.5) for every +7 over the difficulty number is like +1 for every +2 over, even more deadly. Only the 1-for-1 bonus suggested in RoF is more deadly! I guess with yours you get nothing until you get +7, so 6 or less higher doesn't get you any bonus to your damage. But it is still way deadlier than I would want for my game. My damage system already has a mod where mooks have less wound levels (for example, they skip wounded twice and go straight to incapacitated if wounded a second time), so PCs don't really need any more help than the 1-for-4 bonus. I also rationalized my rounding up of 1D increments to 4 because my wound status ranges are all increments of 4.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2023 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | | Instead of the numbers, in my house rules overhaul, for extra effects I compare to what difficultly their result would have hit - i.e. what difficulty level.. |
Just to clarify, I’m assuming your Difficulty Levels go up by fives (DL1 = 1-5; DL2 = 6-10; etc), and instead of assigning a difficulty number to a task, you assign a Difficulty Level – “It’s a moderately difficult shot, Difficulty Level Three.” The player makes their roll, tallies it up and knowing 5 times Difficulty Level is the top of each band, can reply with “Twenty-two! I hit a Difficulty Level Five.” You then know they succeeded with a Measure of Success of 2 and adjudicate appropriately.
Do you state the DL# before or after factoring in modifiers? In the past I’ve silently picked the Difficulty Number, stated the Difficulty Range and modifiers – “That would be an easy shot except for this thick smoke,” then roll/account for the modifiers while the player makes their roll.
If I have it right, I quite your approach. Perhaps you lose a little nuance by using entire number ranges, but I can see that being a very worthwhile trade off.
I also wish to use Degrees/Measure of Success/Failure a lot more in my games, but since I don’t typically tell my players the exact Difficulty Number, I would guess it is harder for them to help me calculate the difference. If I worked in Difficulty ranges, it would simplify the process…
| Whill wrote: | | Crimson Red, welcome back to the land of the living (actively posting as opposed to only lurking). It's been a long time! |
Thank you, I was a little shocked to see how long it’s been since I last posted. And apologies, I also have some replies for you, I just didn’t have the time to get to them yet, be back soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2023 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: | | pakman wrote: | | Instead of the numbers, in my house rules overhaul, for extra effects I compare to what difficultly their result would have hit - i.e. what difficulty level.. |
Just to clarify, I’m assuming your Difficulty Levels go up by fives (DL1 = 1-5; DL2 = 6-10; etc), and instead of assigning a difficulty number to a task, you assign a Difficulty Level – “It’s a moderately difficult shot, Difficulty Level Three.” The player makes their roll, tallies it up and knowing 5 times Difficulty Level is the top of each band, can reply with “Twenty-two! I hit a Difficulty Level Five.” You then know they succeeded with a Measure of Success of 2 and adjudicate appropriately.
|
Yes.
For most combat situations - I let them know the difficutly - unless there are unknown factors - then they just give me what level they would have achieved.
"I got 3" meaning they would have hit Difficulty 3, or Moderate.
Then I if were unknown, I tell them the result etc.
| Crimson_red wrote: |
Do you state the DL# before or after factoring in modifiers? In the past I’ve silently picked the Difficulty Number, stated the Difficulty Range and modifiers – “That would be an easy shot except for this thick smoke,” then roll/account for the modifiers while the player makes their roll.
|
Usually after - unless like I said, they would not know.
In combat, since I use an optional rule of each success level over on the hit, is a +1 pip to damage, it helps speed things along if they know.
For example, on a DL3:Moderate shot they say
"I needed 3 and got 5, so that is two over, which is +2 damage, right?"
Gm: "yes, go ahead and roll damage at +2".
| Crimson_red wrote: |
If I have it right, I quite your approach. Perhaps you lose a little nuance by using entire number ranges, but I can see that being a very worthwhile trade off.
|
Yes, it it totally worth it in my opinon - and been using it in an actual game for almost two years.
I can shift levels (and do) all the time depending. If I want something that would be less than a full level, I give players a bonus.
If I want a slightly lower difficulty - I just give the player a small bonus instead of changing the target number (more on this later).
I just give them a bonus either another die, or a +1 or +2.
If I want a higher difficulty, I go up to the next level - and give them a bonus.
GM: "this shot is a bit more difficult due to the wind and debris - so it is DL4, but you can see past some of it, so I will give you a +2". that kind of thing.
When I give a bonus - the players don't mind that the difficulty shifted as much.
| Crimson_red wrote: |
I also wish to use Degrees/Measure of Success/Failure a lot more in my games, but since I don’t typically tell my players the exact Difficulty Number, I would guess it is harder for them to help me calculate the difference. If I worked in Difficulty ranges, it would simplify the process…
|
Absolutely
Like I said, in an opposed check (like a bribe) or an unknown (like a search etc.) they just say "I got 3" meaning they would have got DL3: Moderate.
I know the actual DL, and give the response .....
As mentioned previously - it also works really well with other structured results - jumps, force powers, duration on abilities etc.
Like I might have a force power that lasts 1 Round Per Control Die + 1 more round per measure of success.
No chart to consult, nothing to look up on a table.
(in my force power overhaul - I tried to stream line and add consistent structure to a lot of things - to make easier to learn, and easier to remember - far from perfect - but overall pretty good - but that ...is another story).
We are really happy with it.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2023 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I've used this for every adventure I've ran since I posted this thread (and beforehand I had ran some mock scenarios to playtest it). I don't really have many additional insights or feelings other than confirmation that this was the right change to make. It has made planning challenge levels of adventures because the difficulties directly correspond to dice roll averages (before factoring in the wild die). |
Honestly, this is what appeals to me the most. Not only for planning challenges as a GM, but planning how to respond to challenges as a player. I find the arithmetic more intuitive, and the one deviation (Very Easy) is handled up front, and each tier Easy and beyond, effectively equates to a +7/+2D.
| Whill wrote: | | Your proposal of +1D (3.5) for every +7 over the difficulty number is like +1 for every +2 over, even more deadly. Only the 1-for-1 bonus suggested in RoF is more deadly! I guess with yours you get nothing until you get +7, so 6 or less higher doesn't get you any bonus to your damage. |
Agreed. I want to offer a rarer, but potentially larger reward for good player rolls, and give them something else to consider when deciding to focus on one task or accept MAPs for additional tasks. And I am banking on that wider +7 difference to keep things somewhat bound. I too would limit the Damage Bonus to PCs and noted NPCs
Also, though not a good basis to form a game system around, I am aware that I mostly run one-shot adventures and limited adventure arcs, so my PCs are less likely to have the dice pools needed to consistently earn a multi-die bonus. Regardless, I’m still just considering options atm.
| Whill wrote: | | I did use my difficulty ranges as an inspiration for my skill damage bonus, but I decided to round the 3.5 to 4 because I felt that rounding down (+1 to damage for every +3 rolled over the difficulty) was too harsh in my already slightly deadlier house |
I’ve been wanting to put a greater emphasis on a “Measure of Success” in my games, particularly for Opposed Rolls. So far I’ve been toying with Thresholds, something like (0)/+1/+3/+7/+14/etc. I want to use the same numbers (3.5/7) used on the difficulty ranges, so everyone is thinking with the same numbers, but rounding down felt too low to me for the 3.5 as well…
After reading about pakman’s Difficulty Levels and Measure of Success, I'm now also considering adapting something like that, but using your numbers instead, as a different solution.
| Whill wrote: | | I also rationalized my rounding up of 1D increments to 4 because my wound status ranges are all increments of 4. |
Since you brought it up, I’ve been wanting to ask about your Damage Resistance charts. I see you largely altered the ranges to match your redefined difficulty ranges, but chose to keep the final step (dead/destroyed) to 16+. I like that it makes the Mortally Wounded/Critically Damaged into a wider range relative to the previous ranges, and since the target is down and effectively out of the fight yet still has a chance to survive if narratively appropriate, it is a desirable place for damage rolls to land. Did you consider widening it further? Perhaps making Dead/Destroyed 18+ (making Mortally Wounded range a full 7), or 21+ (To land on one of those multiples of seven), making the game equally brisque, if potentially less deadly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: | | After reading about pakman’s Difficulty Levels and Measure of Success, I'm now also considering adapting something like that, but using your numbers instead, as a different solution. |
Cool. Let us know how that goes.
| Crimson_red wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | I also rationalized my rounding up of 1D increments to 4 because my wound status ranges are all increments of 4. |
Since you brought it up, I’ve been wanting to ask about your Damage Resistance charts. I see you largely altered the ranges to match your redefined difficulty ranges, but chose to keep the final step (dead/destroyed) to 16+. I like that it makes the Mortally Wounded/Critically Damaged into a wider range relative to the previous ranges, and since the target is down and effectively out of the fight yet still has a chance to survive if narratively appropriate, it is a desirable place for damage rolls to land. Did you consider widening it further? Perhaps making Dead/Destroyed 18+ (making Mortally Wounded range a full 7), or 21+ (To land on one of those multiples of seven), making the game equally brisque, if potentially less deadly? |
No, I never considered anything like that. On the RAW damage chart, I didn't like the varying increments, but I wanted to keep it close to RAW. Here is some more detail about that from the thread about my damage house rules website:
| Quote: | | In my new damage chart (for everything), every result difference increment is a range of 4 die roll results, which now makes this system only slightly more damaging than RAW. (A difference of 8 is incapacitated/heavy damage instead of wounded/light damage, and a difference of 12 is mortally wounded/severe damage instead of incapacitated/heavy.) One of my prior complaints was the seemingly arbitrary level ranges that varied from 3 to 5 each. Even my first revision based on die code averages still had varying level ranges (3 or 4 due to rounding), so making it 4 results each appealed to me and lined it up with RAW, so 16+ is still killed/destroyed. I did have to move 0 down to line it all up. Outside of damage, I am still committed to my 3.5/7 difficulty system, which shows through here in all the 3 and 7 modifiers. |
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2023 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Crimson_red wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | I also rationalized my rounding up of 1D increments to 4 because my wound status ranges are all increments of 4. |
Since you brought it up, I’ve been wanting to ask about your Damage Resistance charts. I see you largely altered the ranges to match your redefined difficulty ranges, but chose to keep the final step (dead/destroyed) to 16+. I like that it makes the Mortally Wounded/Critically Damaged into a wider range relative to the previous ranges, and since the target is down and effectively out of the fight yet still has a chance to survive if narratively appropriate, it is a desirable place for damage rolls to land. Did you consider widening it further? Perhaps making Dead/Destroyed 18+ (making Mortally Wounded range a full 7), or 21+ (To land on one of those multiples of seven), making the game equally brisque, if potentially less deadly? |
No, I never considered anything like that. On the RAW damage chart, I didn't like the varying increments, but I wanted to keep it close to RAW. Here is some more detail about that from the thread about my damage house rules website:
| Quote: | | In my new damage chart (for everything), every result difference increment is a range of 4 die roll results, which now makes this system only slightly more damaging than RAW. (A difference of 8 is incapacitated/heavy damage instead of wounded/light damage, and a difference of 12 is mortally wounded/severe damage instead of incapacitated/heavy.) One of my prior complaints was the seemingly arbitrary level ranges that varied from 3 to 5 each. Even my first revision based on die code averages still had varying level ranges (3 or 4 due to rounding), so making it 4 results each appealed to me and lined it up with RAW, so 16+ is still killed/destroyed. I did have to move 0 down to line it all up. Outside of damage, I am still committed to my 3.5/7 difficulty system, which shows through here in all the 3 and 7 modifiers. |
|
Cool, thanks for sharing your thought process, I like it. And wow, not sure where my head was at when I wrote that question, I somehow both realized each of your range bands were 4 starting at 0, yet still thought Mortally Wounded was wider. It is relative to 2RE's range I suppose . . . guess that is what I get flipping between 2RE, REUP, and your House Rules while trying to think it all through…
I’ve since put some more thought into using 0-3.5/7/14/21+ ranges for the Damage Resistance charts. I had thought it would be a solid way to make things a little less deadly, especially with my Skill Damage Bonus above; Incapacitated or Mortally Wounded would be far more likely results, which I like, they usually resolve swiftly, but with plenty of narrative potential…
Then I realized Incapacitated starting at 8 or 9 has a much bigger effect on deadliness than later categories. So like you said, “making it 4 results each appeal[s] to me and line[s] it up with RAW, so 16+ is still killed/destroyed” is kind of where I’m at for now. Also, I generally love your D6 Damage house rules, and I heavily consult them when considering my own approach.
| Whill wrote: | | Crimson_red wrote: | | After reading about pakman’s Difficulty Levels and Measure of Success, I'm now also considering adapting something like that, but using your numbers instead, as a different solution. |
Cool. Let us know how that goes. |
| pakman wrote: | | [...] now, we also use "success dice" where a 4+ is a success - and each success is one difficutly level - so that is VERY fast (my players hate math). |
After spotting this post from pakman in another thread and reevaluating what he has posted here, I admit I’m also considering “success dice” as an option. I’ve always considered d6 a relatively fast system and enjoy counting pips, but I’ve also found counting dice at a glance faster than adding their results together. I was reluctant to bring it up here because I’ve read elsewhere that Whill has a preference for adding pips, and it's outside the topic as posted, and I wrongly assumed the math would effectively be the same if a result of 4+ was a success. Yet changing the range from 1-6 to 0-1 changes the average as well, from 3.5 to 0.5 respectively. I want to say a ratio of 0.58 vs 0.5 for an average result, but math terminology was never my strong suit.
I only bring it up now because I had hoped to use one difficulty table whether resolving rolls by difficulty number, difficulty range, or 'successes' rolled, and decide at a later time which I would prefer to implement, but there appears to be a slight drift in Dice Codes between the two approaches that would need to be accounted for when implemented across the system. For both approaches I assume you can hit the difficulty with an average roll, Whill's 3.5/7 allows 1D to equate to a Very Easy result, where as I have 1D equate to 0 Successes, or a Negligible result, and 2D to 1 Success/Very Easy result. It’s small, but enough to impact the decisions I would make, say, for skill damage bonuses and such.
I’m also curious how pakman deals with pips in the die code. I was thinking the player could add their pips to the result of one die, potentially earning an extra success (a +1 could turn a 3 into a success, while a +2 could do the same for a 2). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2023 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an addendum to my previous post, since I can't help but feel I was overthinking things there (almost certainly still am  ), and also wanting to tie it all back to the original topic.
The important detail is the basis of a difficulty range/level should typically equate to an average roll of 2D, regardless how I might ultimately decide to resolve rolls. With that in mind I can better weigh the effects of modifiers, options, scale, etc both for homebrewing and running games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: |
After spotting this post from pakman in another thread and reevaluating what he has posted here, I admit I’m also considering “success dice” as an option. I’ve always considered d6 a relatively fast system and enjoy counting pips, but I’ve also found counting dice at a glance faster than adding their results together. I was reluctant to bring it up here because I’ve read elsewhere that Whill has a preference for adding pips, and it's outside the topic as posted, and I wrongly assumed the math would effectively be the same if a result of 4+ was a success. Yet changing the range from 1-6 to 0-1 changes the average as well, from 3.5 to 0.5 respectively. I want to say a ratio of 0.58 vs 0.5 for an average result, but math terminology was never my strong suit.
|
My house rules overhaul, including the difficulty level normalization (consistent levels), supports both normal "additive" dice and success dice.
The "numbers of success levels" works really well with success dice- you just count the dice that hit.
We use 4+ is a success
For even more speed - we have colored dice - 1-3 is red, and 4-6 is blue.
| Crimson_red wrote: |
I’m also curious how pakman deals with pips in the die code. I was thinking the player could add their pips to the result of one die, potentially earning an extra success (a +1 could turn a 3 into a success, while a +2 could do the same for a 2). |
This is exactly how we handle pips - adding the pips to a single die (so yes, if +2 add that to a single die).
Success dice is not for everyone - but my group likes it.
(they are bad at math, and like how fast it is).
The high visibility - also helps with cheating (sadly - there was an incident ...once ).
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argentsaber
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Oct 2017
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if anyone will get any mileage out of this, but something I often do for determining the actual target inside a difficulty range is a random roll. This is typically 1D6, with a 6 counted as a 5, so that you'll have a Moderate (11-15) roll being 11 on a 1, 12 on a 2, etc. and a 15 on a 5 or a 6. I find this most suitable when players can spend points to add to a roll, letting them know the difficulty but not the precise number. In situations with more uncertainty, I just use between one and three "uncertainty dice" as per the first ed rules companion.
_________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest."
G'Kar, Survivors (Babylon 5) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2023 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: | | So like you said, “making it 4 results each appeal[s] to me and line[s] it up with RAW, so 16+ is still killed/destroyed” is kind of where I’m at for now. I generally love your D6 Damage house rules, and I heavily consult them when considering my own approach. |
Thank you. I began to notice I had a lot of tweaks to damage-related rules so I thought it would be easier to just get them all down in one place instead of a bunch of forum threads. My house rules are designed for my game but I thought I'll share them on their own sub-website and if anyone else is inspired by them, then great. I'm glad they help you consider your approach.
| Crimson_red wrote: | After spotting this post from pakman in another thread and reevaluating what he has posted here, I admit I’m also considering “success dice” as an option. I’ve always considered d6 a relatively fast system and enjoy counting pips, but I’ve also found counting dice at a glance faster than adding their results together. I was reluctant to bring it up here because I’ve read elsewhere that Whill has a preference for adding pips, and it's outside the topic as posted, and I wrongly assumed the math would effectively be the same if a result of 4+ was a success. Yet changing the range from 1-6 to 0-1 changes the average as well, from 3.5 to 0.5 respectively. I want to say a ratio of 0.58 vs 0.5 for an average result, but math terminology was never my strong suit.
I only bring it up now because I had hoped to use one difficulty table whether resolving rolls by difficulty number, difficulty range, or 'successes' rolled, and decide at a later time which I would prefer to implement, but there appears to be a slight drift in Dice Codes between the two approaches that would need to be accounted for when implemented across the system. For both approaches I assume you can hit the difficulty with an average roll, Whill's 3.5/7 allows 1D to equate to a Very Easy result, where as I have 1D equate to 0 Successes, or a Negligible result, and 2D to 1 Success/Very Easy result. It’s small, but enough to impact the decisions I would make, say, for skill damage bonuses and such.
I’m also curious how pakman deals with pips in the die code. I was thinking the player could add their pips to the result of one die, potentially earning an extra success (a +1 could turn a 3 into a success, while a +2 could do the same for a 2)...
The important detail is the basis of a difficulty range/level should typically equate to an average roll of 2D, regardless how I might ultimately decide to resolve rolls. With that in mind I can better weigh the effects of modifiers, options, scale, etc both for homebrewing and running games. |
pakman has a lot of good ideas in general and I keep forgetting that his house system is a success-based "legend" type of D6, not "classic" D6. Many of his ideas are general enough to be used for either, so it doesn't really matter if those are discussed anywhere applicable.
However this thread is specifically about redefining the difficulty ranges to align them with dice rolling probabilities in D6 classic, and a house system being success-based D6 does alter the probabilities so the premise for the mod of this thread would not apply to D6 legend. I don't think I've ever codified it, but I am thinking that legend-specific topics would be best discussed in the Star Wars Games forum. I've only played D6 legend a couple times and was not a fan, so I won't have much, if anything, to contribute.
| Argentsaber wrote: | | In situations with more uncertainty, I just use between one and three "uncertainty dice" as per the first ed rules companion. |
I don't recall ever using the uncertainly dice rule in the 1eRC days, because the system already has a lot of randomness built into it with the skills rolls. Randomizing the difficulty with 2D-3D of uncertainty dice feels extreme to me, which is why I also never used the extremely random difficulties chart in R&E.
| Argentsaber wrote: | | I don't know if anyone will get any mileage out of this, but something I often do for determining the actual target inside a difficulty range is a random roll. This is typically 1D6, with a 6 counted as a 5, so that you'll have a Moderate (11-15) roll being 11 on a 1, 12 on a 2, etc. and a 15 on a 5 or a 6. I find this most suitable when players can spend points to add to a roll, letting them know the difficulty but not the precise number. |
This post inspired me to look back at me to reread this thread and implement the tweak I mentioned in the thread to shift my random difficulty results above VE from leaving out the top possible result in the range instead of the bottom. I rarely use random difficulties but I figure if I am leaving it up to chance I can leave out the top of the range.
I also formally adopted the chart from D6 Space which helped inspire this this thread's innovation. It is the complete other end of the spectrum from random difficulties: Die Code Simplification, a chart to make skill rolls less random when applicable. I just took the chart as-is from D6 Space and expanded it down to 12D.
I've used it several times over the years after a D&D adventure I played about 20 years ago. I played a fighter with Str 17 and another PC in the group was a little halfling with Str 10. We were caught in a metal-barred trap so my PC, being the strongest, tried first to bend the bars. I failed miserably, not a budge. Then the halfling does it and rolls well, easily bending he bars enough for him to escape and release the rest of us from the trap. We all had a nice laugh about it, but it doesn't really make sense for some things to be so random, like controlled-environment applications of brute strength. Since then I've used this chart for some lifting/exertion checks when applicable in my SW D6 game.
The premise is you only roll one wild die and the rest of your dice are traded in for the average roll. The odd die codes have an even dice average when you subtract the 1D, so the odd die codes have the remaining dice average as whole numbers. Since the even die codes have an odd number of remaining dice, the die code averages are ".5s" and a rounding convention must be applied. D6 Space rounded those up, and I chose to stay with that because when the die code is evenly matched up to the corresponding difficulty level, the range of possible result include the top of the range (Die code simplification will virtually never be matched up to random difficulties, which means it will almost always be matched to non-random difficulties which include the top of the range.) Another angle to look at it is, an odd number of dice can't ever result in rolling exactly the average result, so to roll "average or above" you actually have to just roll above. An even number of dice can roll average and above. So rounding up is the right thing to do. And with the wild die, you still have enough of a randomness factor.
Below is a google sheet document to show the charts more neatly than could be displayed in the forum...
Redefined Difficulty Numbers and Die Code Simplification (for Star Wars D6)
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
pakman has a lot of good ideas in general....
|
 Thank you sir...
| Whill wrote: |
... and I keep forgetting that his house system is a success-based "legend" type of D6, not "classic" D6. Many of his ideas are general enough to be used for either, so it doesn't really matter if those are discussed anywhere applicable.
|
Yes ...with a clarification - my rules are concerned more about what difficulty level the character got - not the math on how they got there. The legend vs. classic part - is a tiny fraction of the content - literally one single page in 200+ page document.
100% of all the rules work the same.
Having consistent levels - helps enable my core concept of difficulty level shifting and results segmentation.
(all of them being 4 or 5 - enables it to make more sense when a situation should raise or lower a difficulty level).
anyway - back on this thread's topic - I want to talk more about this fascinating table Whill has shared ....
| Whill wrote: |
The premise is you only roll one wild die and the rest of your dice are traded in for the average roll. The odd die codes have an even dice average when you subtract the 1D, so the odd die codes have the remaining dice average as whole numbers. Since the even die codes have an odd number of remaining dice, the die code averages are ".5s" and a rounding convention must be applied. D6 Space rounded those up, and I chose to stay with that because when the die code is evenly matched up to the corresponding difficulty level, the range of possible result include the top of the range (Die code simplification will virtually never be matched up to random difficulties, which means it will almost always be matched to non-random difficulties which include the top of the range.) Another angle to look at it is, an odd number of dice can't ever result in rolling exactly the average result, so to roll "average or above" you actually have to just roll above. An even number of dice can roll average and above. So rounding up is the right thing to do. And with the wild die, you still have enough of a randomness factor.
Below is a google sheet document to show the charts more neatly than could be displayed in the forum...
Redefined Difficulty Numbers and Die Code Simplification (for Star Wars D6) |
This is absolutely fascinating.
I had looked at the chart before - and it had actually kind of inspired me to think about things in levels - I was thinking about the concept of "minimum result" - relating back to the halfling example - should there be a minimum?
But players like dice - and they hope they can do better....don't they?
Then I never came back to it - although in thinking about Scale dice and damage - I have been thinking about it recently (just this past weekend, as a matter of fact) - should we use something this in starship combat? (that way a wookie can't survive a hit from a tie fighter...).
I mean - what else can I use this for.... hmmm...
Clearly a great thought topic when discussing randomness of dice pools.
thank you for sharing your thoughts and this chart - oh, and I am going to put in my GM section on choosing between "legend" and "Classic" or alternatively using 4's instead of 5s...
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | ... and I keep forgetting that his house system is a success-based "legend" type of D6, not "classic" D6. Many of his ideas are general enough to be used for either, so it doesn't really matter if those are discussed anywhere applicable. |
Yes ...with a clarification - my rules are concerned more about what difficulty level the character got - not the math on how they got there. |
OK, but I'm not sure what that is clarifying. The very premise for the house rule of this thread is that in RAW, the dice used to make skill rolls (d6s) and the difficulty chart they are rolled against were both born out of two independent conveniences (d6s are common and exist in most households, and the average gamer's ability to remember a chart that requires counting by 5s and 10s). The product of these two convenience factors is a chart where there is no direct correspondence between the number of dice being rolled and the difficulty level of the action being attempted. Your rules are concerned about the difficulty level the character got, but this mod is concerned the character skill levels that determine the number of dice being rolled directly comparing to the difficulty levels. Since I am sticking with d6 being the type of dice rolled and the D6 classic variant system, then the only option left to synch these two things is to alter the difficulty scale according to dice roll averages. "Math" is the very basis of the mod, so this can't not be concerned with it. The outcome is it makes NPC creation and planning challenge levels easier for me, but it also helps players have a better estimation of their odds of succeeding in a considered action.
| Quote: | | The legend vs. classic part - is a tiny fraction of the content - literally one single page in 200+ page document. |
I'm not at all surprised to read that. Like I said, I keep forgetting about it when you talk about your system.
| Quote: | | I am going to put in my GM section on choosing between "legend" and "Classic" or alternatively using 4's instead of 5s... |
Cool.
| Quote: | | 100% of all the rules work the same. |
Crimson_red's point still stands that D6 legends does skew the odds a bit from D6 classic (which this mod is deeply entrenched in). Even if you aren't concerned about the odds in your game design, rolling dice with different degrees of success possible means that odds are still a factor in how your game plays out.
He only brought it up here because he is considering using inspirations from my redefined difficulty chart and your system. But really, D6 legends or legends vs. classic should be discussed in Star Wars Games forum and not here. D6 classic is boldly inherent in the very purpose of this thread. This does not apply to success-based versions of D6. But best wishes for your house system. I'm really looking forward to the finished product.
| pakman wrote: | anyway - back on this thread's topic - I want to talk more about this fascinating table Whill has shared .... This is absolutely fascinating.
...
I mean - what else can I use this for.... hmmm...
Clearly a great thought topic when discussing randomness of dice pools.
thank you for sharing your thoughts and this chart |
Glad you find it interesting and thought provoking. I just thought it would be neater to display those key charts side-by-side on a spreadsheet rather than how they are rendered in forum posts.
| pakman wrote: | I had looked at the chart before - and it had actually kind of inspired me to think about things in levels - I was thinking about the concept of "minimum result" - relating back to the halfling example - should there be a minimum?
But players like dice - and they hope they can do better....don't they? |
Not exactly sure what you mean. The D6 (classic) system has a minimum. You roll all 1s and the GM rules the wild die 1 may reduce the roll further.
I have ruled that if a PC is attempting something so easy that they would succeed with all 1s (usually VE things), then sometimes I will not bother with the roll or I will say, roll only a wild die and tell me if it is a 1 for a possible minor complication. But those are always GM-determined in play; no need to codify that in rules IMO.
| pakman wrote: | | Then I never came back to it - although in thinking about Scale dice and damage - I have been thinking about it recently (just this past weekend, as a matter of fact) - should we use something this in starship combat? (that way a wookie can't survive a hit from a tie fighter...) |
A minimum damage roll against lower scales? I've embraced the randomness of the dice and instead address it a different way. I have a problem with soft fleshy characters soaking even same-scale blaster bolts, so I have a minimum damage result as stun, and furthermore I often re-interpret stun results as near-misses.
In your example, if a Wookiee is only incapacitated by a spacefighter weapon, perhaps the results could be interpreted as the blast hitting near the Wookiee and the Wookiee just getting caught in a explosion.
If a character is a on planet that gets attacked by a Death Star, I would probably rule there is a minimum damage and not roll dice.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
