Dramatic? Actually, quite the opposite

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Darrin Bright at 2005-04-12 09:22:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

This doesn't make any sense. To make D&D more Dramatic, you're going to reduce the chance that something interesting happens (critical threat) from 5% to 1%?

Ok, granted, a critical doesn't happen every time you roll a 20, and in the existing game, that particular event only happens in combat.

However, let's assume that in standard D&D, a dramatic event happens every time you roll a 20, be that a critical, autosave, automatic success, or whatnot. That happens 5%, or more if you consider "critical failure" events when you roll a natural 1.

By switching to a 2d10 system, you've reduced the "critical" event to 1% (almost as bad as GURPS... ugh). Only your fix for this is to allow the GM to let players reroll the lowest, under certain conditions, if the player can manage to come up with some explanation on why this would be heroic/cinematic.

So, assuming a best-case scenario where the GM allows absolutely *EVERY* die roll to be improved in this manner, regardless of genre or heroic elements... 19% of all those rolls will show a "0" on either die, and 1% will show "0" on both. (You've also handily prevented 80% of those rolls from never ever EVER being dramatic, no matter what the heck the GM or player does.)

In order to be "more dramatic" than standard D&D, then somewhereabouts 1/4th of those rolls need to be "0" in order to get close to the 5% of standard D20... but the chances of rolling a "0" are, surprisingly enough, about 1 in 10. TANJ. I'm not exactly sure of the math, but I think you've actually raised the percentage of a "Dramatic event" from 1% to somewhere in the whoppingly-more-likely neighborhood of 3%. (About the same as GURPS.)

Congratulations, you've fixed the Flattened Probability Curve problem in standard D&D! I think this is an example of "fixing a leaking pipe" by "tearing out the wall".

Insert gratuitous mention of "Fantasy Heartbreaker" and of course the mandatory cross-post GNS flameware with an appropriate pundit from TheForge.

(Just my opinion, mind you, but standard D20 with Action Points actually works out to be much more cinematic than the system you describe. There are also several dozen horribly wrong things I'd fix before I'd muck around with the basic dice mechanics... thankfully, you mention several of them in your article.)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-12 11:52:10
Converted from Phorums BB System

Darrin,

Thank you for the congrats. And congratulations to you for presenting an opposing viewpoint in a polite and well-mannered response. Thankfully I was able to get some useful critiques out of your snide rudeness.

I came up more changes to D&D this month since my column last month didn't have many changes to the system. I'm assuming from your post that you didn't like 2d10 but would fix some of the other things I noted.

I use Action Points in my current Eberron game. Without the feats that make use of them they don't make the game that much more dramatic in my opinion. Too random although getting to roll twice and take the better roll at high levels smoothes that problem out some.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-12 20:57:01
Converted from Phorums BB System

I like the 2d10 setup, it puts much less standard deviation into rolls and, while reducing the chance of huge success, also reduces the chance your barbarian with a +10 Jump rolls a 1 and plummets into a narrow chasm. It introduces a reliability that they try to hack with the take 10/20 rules.

And the chance of a good critical isn't necessarily less - remember you have to "confirm" criticals in d20. On a weapon that crits on 20, if you need a 17+ to hit, that's exactly the same chance of a "dramatic result" as 2d10. And it allows you to eliminate all the pointless complexity of threat ranges, feats allowing bonuses to confirm crits, etc.

The only real problem with 2d10 is that the fading math skills of today's youth will make it untenable in that timeframe...

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Nihtgenga at 2005-04-13 02:45:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

I like the way d20 works now when it comes to criticals - 1 number does both the critical and the chance to hit - elegant. Note that the DMG contains optional rules already for using criticals in other skill rolls, so you could say that is part of the basic rules anyway (as in, you don't have to go outside of the manuals to find optional rules).

Anyway, my biggest problem with the 'Dramatic' concept is it is making Dramatic choices of the players somewhat random (not to mention rare). I would prefer something like the Conan fate points which gives the player more freedom of when to be dramatic, instead of waiting for the dice.

Action points, as they stand, aren't really Dramatic, they are more of a moderator than anything else.

Charlie: are your character classes intended to be a scaled up version of the 3 generic classes (warrior, expert and spellcaster) in Unearthed Arcana?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-13 04:15:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ernest,

Glad you like it. I do like the idea of removing the need to confirm a critical. I should have made that point more clear in my column.

As for math skills, we could include a calculator with the PHB. I'm only half joking. We actually use them now for some of our players who aren't big into math (lots of factors added in with 13th level characters).

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-13 04:22:44
Converted from Phorums BB System

Nihtgenga,

I knew when I suggested 2d10 it wouldn't be for everyone. But after my last column some readers suggested more change so I tossed out some ideas.

I do like the idea that in the Dramatic system you don't have to roll to confirm a critical anymore. But sense you're rerolling one die anyone, I really didn't make the system more simple.

I'll have to check out fate points.

My character classes idea is similar to UA but I think goes a little further than the base three. I wanted a way to roll new core classes and prestige classes together. One way to do that was to allow new class abilities using class feats.

A DM who doesn't want a lot of change to those six core classes doesn't have to allow variant classes. He simply vetoes the use of certain class feats. Other DMs can mix and match class feats to make the classes they want for their worlds.

In the end, although you'd still end up with lots of classes, changing the class abilities into feats would allow a DM to mix and match more easily. He wouldn't have to use a whole prestige class, he could instead simply take some of the new class feats and use them with his own class variants.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Darrin Bright at 2005-04-13 06:01:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

My main opposition to using 2d10 is my firm conviction that any game where I can't say "Suck on my Natural 20, monkeyboy!" just isn't D&D.

I have no strenuous objections to the flattened probability curve... I'm a little puzzled why some people find it so infuriating.

What I am concerned about is you've stated the objective that you want a more "Dramatic" game (without really exploring what was so un-dramatic about the current incarnation), but you've created a mechanic that is driven by pure chance and moderated exclusively by the GM (who declares when a certain subset of lucky rolls can be improved for dramatic effect). Under this system, the players have even LESS control over when something dramatic happens.

This whole exercise so far carries the heady aroma of "Fantasy Heartbreaker", which I suppose I should respect as a necessary exercise for any would-be game designer. I'm just hoping the designer is at least familiar with some of the theory and techniques that go into it. Which I admit is *not* really a requirement for game design. But I'd like to think it helps. On the other hand, bringing up GNS or DFK theory can also be an effective way to thoroughly and permanently end all meaningful discussion.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-13 16:24:07
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree with getting rid of prestige classes. IMO you can just organize multiple "feat trees" to replace class abilities. Give everyone a feat per level and let 'em choose what they want.

Traveller20 does something like this - class abilities are just turned into feats that are unique to a class. Rather than bother with that, you can just have trees of feats, and add prereqs as you desire. This basically generates a prestige-class - if you have to belong to the Gatekeepers to get access to a tree of feats that have other prerequisites... No need for classes with prereqs. Just feats with prereqs. Makes things a lot simpler.

Class archetypes really become just for the attack/defense/saves/hit points/skill points... You could go the d20 Modern route and have base classes after the abilities, but I don't really like that (too limiting). The core D&D classes break down into the:

o high attack/hp guy (fightery classes)
o high skill guy (roguey classes)
o spellcaster guy (wizard/cleric)
o spontaneous spellcaster guy (sorcerer/favored soul)
o high defense guy (cleric/monk)

All the rest of the differences can be purely feat based. Mix and match classes for best effect (bard is 2/3 high skill guy and 1/3 spellcaster guy, take "singy singy" feat tree).

With a little more work you could probably turn the spellcasting into feat trees too and then just come up with hp/save/attack/defense/skill point tradeoffs per level.

Ernest