Why not use a d20?

[arcadayn]

Great topic. I've always been a fan of percentile systems and the larger numerical range they supply. I also enjoy the ease of wrapping ones head around having a percent chance to accomplish something.

Subsequently, I've never been a fan of D6 based systems, especially dice pool games where you end up rolling handfulls of D6s. I think part of the reason for my D6 dislike is that a six sider is just so mundane and common! What's the fun of playing an RPG with Yahtzee dice?

On a related note, I'm used to using a percentile system (Rolemaster) that requires rolling over a target number as opposed to under. I know it's going to take a bit to get my around it, but is their really a mechanical difference?

[RMS]

Great topic. I've always been a fan of percentile systems and the larger numerical range they supply. I also enjoy the ease of wrapping ones head around having a percent chance to accomplish something.

This is one of the beauties of BRP in my experience. Anyone can pick up a character sheet and with very little explanation understand how good the character is at things. It's very intuitive and all right there on the character sheet. (I do recognize that having stats in percentiles would help this part even more, but I like the way they fold back into the system as written.)

Subsequently, I've never been a fan of D6 based systems, especially dice pool games where you end up rolling handfulls of D6s. I think part of the reason for my D6 dislike is that a six sider is just so mundane and common! What's the fun of playing an RPG with Yahtzee dice?

I've been working on/off on my homebrew system for a few years and put down a specific design goal to only use standard dice (ie d6's) for ease of use, though I have kept in the back of my mind that a d10 isn't that odd. It uses dice pools too, though not huge ones. I'm just a big binomial person!

On a related note, I'm used to using a percentile system (Rolemaster) that requires rolling over a target number as opposed to under. I know it's going to take a bit to get my around it, but is their really a mechanical difference?

There's no inherent difference between roll high and roll low. That's a common RPG myth. All differences are implementation specific. The open-ended roll high and consult a chart d100 method of RM is significantly different from the roll low and calculate a success level of BRP. There's no chart or table lookup in BRP (only a couple of small, minor ones on the character sheet if using hit locations), but you do some basic multiplication on each roll.

[frogspawner]

I think part of the reason for my D6 dislike is that a six sider is just so mundane and common!

I've been working on/off on my homebrew system for a few years and put down a specific design goal to only use standard dice (ie d6's) for ease of use, though I have kept in the back of my mind that a d10 isn't that odd.

But it'd be great to come up with a simple way of generating 1-100 by rolling d6's...

...'cos it'd help BRP marketing a lot if potential new players didn't have to get 'weird' dice first.

[Aycorn]

But my idea as a GM would be to just say: "You picked a fight with 50 bad guys? Well, you are dead!".

Something like this, anyway.

It shouldn't be necessary to roll for each member of the mob.

[RosenMcStern]

This is one of the circumstances in hand to hand combat that HeroQuest handles better. You just skip rolling individual "goons" as attacks and add them to the Big Bad Guy's AP total (or use them as augments).

Jason integrated the concept of augments (assisting) in simple skill resolution in the new BRP. It is a pity there is no equivalent for combat.

[raymond_turney]

It seems to me that the granularity issue is more closely related to the number of dice rolled than to the type of dice rolled. System can be divided into the following categories:

a) roll one die, usually a D10 or D20 - most gamers seem to feel that this offers too little granularity

roll two D10's and interpret them as a D100 to get a percentile system {RQ, BRP, etc}. Compare to different numbers, depending on skill, to find out if the success was a fumble, special or critical.

c) roll D20 and if a potential funny result {fumble, special or crit} is possible then roll another D20 to see if it happens. This actually gives finer granularity than D100 systems, since you're basically using base 20, and 400 different results are possible. AD&D 3.5, I think, F&S and a number of other systems are like this.

d) Roll several D6 and add them together, GURPS, etc. This gives a much more Poisson like distribution,so mediocrity is a lot more common. The tendency to have a lot of mediocrity is realistic, but undramatic.

In theory, we could also have a roll D30, then roll D30 system {this is what the F&S Heroquest the characters in my personal game are now on amounts to}. This is equivalent to rolling D900 and offers even finer granularity than the common alternatives. The smaller size D30 make this fairly practical. I'm not sure I would want a system that did this on a regular basis, but I might change my mind if my characters get better, and more of the rolls become successes.

Essentially, whether you prefer percentile, one D20 and another if necessary, or GURPS style dice rolling is a matter of taster. I like rolling the minimum number of dice necessary at a time, so I like D20 then a second D20 if necessary - but for characters as good as the PC's in our campaign, it is always necessary. So F&S at a high level also involves rolling two dice. I nearly always prefer rolling dice to interpreting a roll, since I think interpretation takes more time than rolling dice as such.

Actually, I am not sure what dice you roll is a very important aspect of a system, once you get past rolling only one die at all times.

Good luck,

Ray,

[frogspawner]

Actually, I am not sure what dice you roll is a very important aspect of a system, once you get past rolling only one die at all times.

Good luck,

Ray,

Thanks for that. I was just hoping a good (enough) simple emulation of d100 with d6's could help bring non-gaming newbies in to BRP (thence F&S, perhaps).

I'd even consider rolling 2d6 and just reading them as if they were the 2d10 normally used for d100! Ok, it'd only give numbers 11-66, but for an introductory-type A4 adventure (as mentioned in another thread), and perhaps taking 11 as a critical and 66 as fumble, it might do the trick...

But is it a worthwhile exercise? Or do "normal people" all have funny-shaped dice these days?

[rust]

Or do "normal people" all have funny-shaped dice these days?

I do not know much about normal people, but all the roleplaying gamers I

know indeed have those funny-shaped dice.

[Atgxtg]

Actually, I am not sure what dice you roll is a very important aspect of a system, once you get past rolling only one die at all times.

Good luck,

Ray,

It can be an important aspect when the matter of probablity comes into play. OFten there is a big difference between what a player or GM expects a character to be able to do, and what the laws od probability allow a character to be able to do in a game. Sometimes the mathematics behind the method will intrude on the play of the game, and ignoring the math can skew the gameplay. Some examples:

Storyteller System (multiple D10s): The double whammy of varible difficulty and required sucesses to perform an action means that, statistically speaking, the best way for most characters to drive a stake though a vampire's heart is to hand the vampirethe stake and hope he botches.

RQ/BRP/CoC/etc (D100 with degress of success): The minimum critical and fumble ranges are so high that most weapons vechiles and other tech is too unreliable. If between 1 and 5% off all aircraft pilots actually fumbled on take off or landing air travel would be bannded. Likewise, big nasties such as dragons, can't really assauslt a castle successfully, becuase one of those archers manning the walls is going to get a crtical.

I bring this up just to point out that the dice do matter, GMs and players should be aware of how, so they know when it is best not to rely on them.

[RosenMcStern]

Storyteller System (multiple D10s): The double whammy of varible difficulty and required sucesses to perform an action means that, statistically speaking, the best way for most characters to drive a stake though a vampire's heart is to hand the vampire the stake and hope he botches.

If between 1 and 5% off all aircraft pilots actually fumbled on take off or landing air travel would be bannded. Likewise, big nasties such as dragons, can't really assauslt a castle successfully, becuase one of those archers manning the walls is going to get a critical.

The suggested range of critical successes/errors should be applied only to actions that involve PCs, which require a more frequent occurrence of extreme situations for narrative reasons. In other situations critical rolls should happen only at GM discretion. Moreover, a fumble when landing with an aircraft could also mean you damage the craft gear, not necessarily that the plane crashes.

[frogspawner]

I do not know much about normal people, but all the roleplaying gamers I know indeed have those funny-shaped dice.

Of course, but I'm thinking d6's would be better to introduce non-gamers to RPG/BRP.

Sadly, if you show the BRP book to D20-players accustomed to slick and glossy D&D product then I fear they would not be impressed.

[Atgxtg]

Glad you liked it. Example drawn from an actual play session of Vampire. I had ambushed another Vasmp who was out to get me, and discovered that I wasn't rolling enough dice to have a chance at staking the guy, then realized in lay that his chance of bothcing was higher than my chance of success. Our group soon realized that the game mechanics of the Stroyteller system sound reasonable, and make a lot of sense, but don't hold up in actual gameplay.

The suggested range of critical successes/errors should be applied only to actions that involve PCs, which require a more frequent occurrence of extreme situations for narrative reasons. In other situations critical rolls should happen only at GM discretion. Moreover, a fumble when landing with an aircraft could also mean you damage the craft gear, not necessarily that the plane crashes.

Agreed. Except I would extend the use of crticals frumbles to major NPCs under the same conditions. But then, that is my point. A GM familar with the dice probabilities knows enough to avoid rolling all the time. Roll enough and eventually a PC will fumble badly and kill one or two buddies before tripping and falling onto his sword. Frankly I thing the fumble chart is more of an indication that those SCA guys are "weekend warriors" rather than reflection on real armed combat.

The fumble chance was one reason why I never considered "skill check hunting" to be a problem in RQ/BRP. That any the fact that while "Joe Adventurer" is feeling clever about getting a "free" check in his Left Handed 1H Spear, the dark troll is using his club and probably is bashing his skull in.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Atgxtg

[RMS]

Agreed. Except I would extend the use of crticals frumbles to major NPCs under the same conditions. But then, that is my point. A GM familar with the dice probabilities knows enough to avoid rolling all the time. Roll enough and eventually a PC will fumble badly and kill one or two buddies before tripping and falling onto his sword. Frankly I thing the fumble chart is more of an indication that those SCA guys are "weekend warriors" rather than reflection on real armed combat.

That's why I ignored the fumble chart for the most part. I had the player (or myself) roll another d100 and determine the disadvantage from there. The vast, vast majority of fumbles in my games result in someone overreaching and exposing themselves to attack, losing or breaking weapons, or going down prone due to footing...all resulting in lost actions and indirectly putting the fumbler in a very bad situation. I very rarely had any kind of fumble that did direct damage to anyone.

The fumble chance was one reason why I never considered "skill check hunting" to be a problem in RQ/BRP. That any the fact that while "Joe Adventurer" is feeling clever about getting a "free" check in his Left Handed 1H Spear, the dark troll is using his club and probably is bashing his skull in.

I've only heard of "skill check hunting" on the internet. All forms of BRP combat are way too deadly for this to actually occur at the table in my experience.*

* I also wouldn't be bothered that much by skills improving. General combat experience should reflect on all weapon skills much more than they do in BRP, but that's a different issue I suppose.

[frogspawner]

That's why I ignored the fumble chart for the most part.

But Fumbles (and criticals) are fun! They're one reason you might want to use a D20 - and say 1 Fumbles, 20 Criticals...

That any the fact that while "Joe Adventurer" is feeling clever about getting a "free" check in his Left Handed 1H Spear, the dark troll is using his club and probably is bashing his skull in.

It'd just be "Spear" in default BRP, I think, and that'd include parry, and throwing it, too.

General combat experience should reflect on all weapon skills much more than they do in BRP, but that's a different issue I suppose.

Well you're free in BRP to define Spear, frex, as a similar class to (say) Polearm, Javelin (and anything else?) and thus give a half-chance in those weapons as well.

[RosenMcStern]

Our group soon realized that the game mechanics of the Stroyteller system sound reasonable, and make a lot of sense, but don't hold up in actual gameplay.

To me, it does not even sound reasonable. The atmosphere is great, but the game system is an example of how you can botch it completely by trying to be original.

The fumble chance was one reason why I never considered "skill check hunting" to be a problem in RQ/BRP. That any the fact that while "Joe Adventurer" is feeling clever about getting a "free" check in his Left Handed 1H Spear, the dark troll is using his club and probably is bashing his skull in.

Yes, but this does not prevent the (in)famous scene of casting Disruption at the fleeing trollkin to increaste one's POW, a classic in my games. I disallowed POW growth rolls in these cases long before Jason fixed it with his 50% rule.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Like many of the above posters have said, it is largely a difference of feel as well as relating to the way "specials" work. In many ways, RQII was a D20 system, except for those specials. All the skill breaks and bonuses came in 5% chunks, so they could easily have been reduced to a 1D20 rool. It was only in fumbles, specials and criticals that individual percentiles became important.

But I agree with most posters that D20 has a very different feel to D100, even setting aside those exceptional cases where less than 5% actually matters.

[Atgxtg]

To me, it does not even sound reasonable. The atmosphere is great, but the game system is an example of how you can botch it completely by trying to be original.

I don't believe it would take much to fix the system. Basically just drop the "double whammy" and either raise the difficulty or the number of success. I noticed that the latest version doesn't mess with the target numbers as much as the olders games.

Yes, but this does not prevent the (in)famous scene of casting Disruption at the fleeing trollkin to increaste one's POW, a classic in my games. I disallowed POW growth rolls in these cases long before Jason fixed it with his 50% rule.

:cool: That takes me back. But I seem to recall something about only gaining POW if the opponent had a higher POW. But I might be thinking of another game in the BRP family. Not that it would completely stop the problem. POW, and it's constant chyanging was one of the irksome bits about RQ2. I think it is odd that raising STR, DEX or CON takes weeks of dedicated effort, while POW could be raised by casting one spell.

[RMS]

Missed this response initially:

But Fumbles (and criticals) are fun! They're one reason you might want to use a D20 - and say 1 Fumbles, 20 Criticals...

You misunderstand me. I have criticals and fumbles in my games. I just don't bother looking them up in the tables. (I always took the tables as guidelines, in any event.) I just have the player roll another d100 and make a "reasonable" judgment for the fumble result. I have a generic "table" in my head, but make up the particulars for the situation at hand. I don't have much for "hit yourself", "hit nearest friend", etc. especially in a situation where they don't make any sense.

Well you're free in BRP to define Spear, frex, as a similar class to (say) Polearm, Javelin (and anything else?) and thus give a half-chance in those weapons as well.

That doesn't cover what I'm talking about though. An experience warrior who's mainly fought with sword and shield should only be at a slight disadvantage when switching to axe and shield, or to mace and shield. In fact, the difference is only slightly greater than switching to another sword in most cases. However in any form of BRP that experienced warrior could easily have 80% Sword, 75% Shield, and only 30% Axe/Mace...and it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

OTOH, that same exact warrior in BRP would be in pretty good shape going into battle with just a sword, but it'd make far more sense to penalize him heavily for going without his accustomed shield than to penalize him for switching weapons.

I'd note that all RPGs that I'm familiar with fail pretty badly at this aspect. I generally just wing it to make things more reasonable. In BRP, I'd probably make the warrior fight at 1/2 skill when missing the shield, for example. This is also handled nicely by having separate attack/parry skills for weapons. I also tend to give all melee weapons a significantly default to other melee weapons, but that's not how the rules are actually written.

[RMS]

POW, and it's constant chyanging was one of the irksome bits about RQ2. I think it is odd that raising STR, DEX or CON takes weeks of dedicated effort, while POW could be raised by casting one spell.

That's because you needed to spend POW to get any of the powerful magic and it tended to get drained on a fairly frequent basis. Personally, I liked how both POW and CHA went up/down fluidly, through game play, in RQ2.

[rust]

An experience warrior who's mainly fought with sword and shield should only be at a slight disadvantage when switching to axe and shield, or to mace and shield.

Not really.

Fighting with an axe or mace is indeed much different from fighting with any

kind of sword.

I am not a trained axe fighter, I only know some types of swords quite well,

so I can only make an estimate, but I think that significantly more than 50 %

of all sword maneuvers are impossible to do with an axe, and vice versa.

And it is much the same with the mace.

And some types of swords, for example my favourite one, the renaissance ra-

pier, simply have nothing at all in common with an axe or mace.

One just cannot pierce someone with an axe or mace, or hack him with a ra-

pier.

As for the combination of sword and shield, this is doubtless true: Someone

trained and used to fighting with sword and shield will find it extremely diffi-

cult to defend with a sword alone.

[RMS]

Fighting with an axe or mace is indeed much different from fighting with any kind of sword. I am not a trained axe fighter, I only know some types of swords quite well, so I can only make an estimate, but I think that significantly more than 50 % of all sword maneuvers are impossible to do with an axe, and vice versa. And it is much the same with the mace.

Of course there are things you're missing, but the differences are relatively minor compared to either A: missing a shield if you're used to it, or B: fighting someone with relatively little combat experience. My problem is with having an experienced veteran (my example above is of someone who'd have to have real combat experience, and not just training) drop to being worse than someone with some training but no real combat experience.

And some types of swords, for example my favourite one, the renaissance ra-

pier, simply have nothing at all in common with an axe or mace.

One just cannot pierce someone with an axe or mace, or hack him with a ra-

pier.

True, but way out of context for what's being discussed. Context is everything!

As for the combination of sword and shield, this is doubtless true: Someone

trained and used to fighting with sword and shield will find it extremely diffi-

cult to defend with a sword alone.

...and in current BRP that person is no worse off skill-wise for that loss.

[rust]

True, but way out of context for what's being discussed. Context is everything!

The context is: No matter how experienced the veteran is with his sword,

if it is the "wrong" type of sword (e.g. katana, rapier, short sword) his ex-

perience is almost meaningless if he tries to use an axe in combat, and a

well trained recruit without combat experience, but with a weapon familiar

to him, will most probably kill the veteran easily.

[RMS]

The context is: No matter how experienced the veteran is with his sword, if it is the "wrong" type of sword (e.g. katana, rapier, short sword) his ex-perience is almost meaningless if he tries to use an axe in combat, and a well trained recruit without combat experience, but with a weapon familiar

to him, will most probably kill the veteran easily.

Sure, if you take someone completely out of their time and place and hand them a weapon that is completely unfamiliar to them they'd be at a big disadvantage. It just doesn't add up to any kind of argument against what I said. I'll give a specific example and see where it goes.

Going back to my original point, I don't buy that a Saxon warrior who uses a broad/long/etc. sword and shield in combat is going to be at a massive (> 25% in BRP terms?) disadvantage in going to a battle axe or a mace. Sure, it'll be a disadvantage, but not going back to base skills. Surely his experience with combat, in general, and weapon & shield fighting in specific would be enough to give him a marked advantage over someone who's just picked up a battle axe or a mace for the first time (ie. base percentage). In fact, I'd suggest that he'd still have an advantage over someone with some good training but no real combat experience. (If you want to argue the latter, and not the former, that's fine. I'd disagree but wouldn't belabor the point.)

Btw, I'd argue that the same warrior would be equally disadvantaged if you handed him a rapier, regardless of his main weapon.

Note: I do understand that part of the problem is the way that BRP encourages weapon specialization and that our real Saxon warrior is most likely going to train in all three of the weapons to some extent. Either way it's a rules issue.

[RosenMcStern]

First of all, if your veteran is skilled in Shield or Dodge, switching weapons leaves his defense skill intact, so he is not at so great a disadvantage against a poorly trained veteran who is familiar with his weapon. The problem arises when you have an unfamiliar weapon and NO shield, in which case I think that it is realistic that our veteran is a bit impaired. But I think that in this case using the highest weapon skill rating as a complementary skill to the lowr one can solve the problem without too much houseruling.

Example: Cormac is thrown in the arena with a sword, with which he is totally unfamiliar (25% between skill and modifier). He has 90% in Axe, so he uses his fighting experience with it as a complementary skill, which raises his combat ability to 25+(90/5)=43%. Unfortunately he has no shield and loses his fight against the other gladiator who uses a great axe with competence. Signy is thrown in the same arena with only a dagger, but since she relies on dodging she has her full 100% chance to defend, whatever the attacking weapon, and easily dispatches her opponent (a lion). Sounds familiar to anyone?

[frogspawner]

He has 90% in Axe, so he uses his fighting experience with it as a complementary skill, which raises his combat ability to 25+(90/5)=43%.

Or he just uses the sword with his Axe skill as Difficult, which comes out about the same (90/2 = 45%), under the "Using weapons of similar classes" rule, if the GM allows.