Switch Theme:

Comparing Values VS Dice Pool Successes  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman




I've been working designing a simple, highly customizable battle system, and just recently I was having a think on overhauling the methods of determining success.

Currently, models in my game have multiple stats that are each represented by a single die of varying size. Most contests are decided by models simply rolling a single die for the required stats, and seeing who gets the higher amount. I even designed the game so that each model's points cost is roughly equal to the number of faces on all the dice on their stats (ex: a 1d4 costs 4 points, a 1d10 costs 10, etc). I kind of like this system in terms of keeping things clean and straightforward, and I could even argue that stat-buying under this scheme has built in diminishing returns, since a d20 can still roll a 1.

However, this does present a few issues that has me reconsidering lately. For starters, I strictly want to avoid any rule or buy-in that adds a flat value to any die, since it will almost always be superior to upping the size of a die, as well as making the automatic failure of a total of 1 impossible. It also means that unopposed rolls need to have set values. For the most part I've solved the second problem by specifying that most unopposed rolls require either a 2+ or 4+ to succeed, and since the largest die in game will be a d20, a 4+ still presents a reasonable chance of failure to make it worth rolling. Another problem is the potential of 'forgone conclusion' rolls, such as an attack roll coming up higher than is possible for a defense roll to match or exceed. There's also the issue of whether or not to allow unusual dice as options, or incorporating any kind of reliable scaling in a potential campaign system. Currently, stats span from a d4 to a d20, though there is a considerable leap between the d12 and d20 in most common dice sets that makes even scaling a little difficult. More esoteric dice exist (like d16's), but I want to avoid making them a requirement to play.

So, with these issues in mind, I was considering the merits of changing the system over to a dice pool/success system. I was thinking using only the humble d6, which any wargamer should have buckets of, and tracking successes as rolls of 4+. Stats on the models, instead of being worth a total number of points equal to the faces on its corresponding die, would simply be worth a number of points equal to the number of d6's assigned to it. This could allow for the game to scale arbitrarily large, and can even open up the potential for a degrees-of-success system, where beating out an opposed roll by a greater number of successes can yield different results. I could also do a Risk-esque system where ties are determined by the highest individual roll, or even have that underdog mechanic where the smaller dice pool can win by tying or exceeding their opponent's highest roll. However, I'm a little leery of consistently scaling stats on the 1-point-per-die basis, and I don't want to write up an exponential chart on how much arbitrarily large dice pools should cost. I'm also concerned over if a Risk-style comparison system might lead to frustration when that one chaff model becomes particularly sticky because it won't stop rolling 6's. Though the ability to enhance models throughout campaigns by adding dice, or allowing the option for a 'hero' model that succeeds on 3+'s is awfully tempting.

TL;DR - When it comes to trying to make a simple and dynamic battle system, would you prefer a direct comparison of two die rolls (with potentially different sized dice to represent differences in power), or a comparison of successes between two die pools?
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I have done both, and both are good mechanics.

What made you consider the change in the first place? Feedback? Playtest results? Headspace?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

Both can work, as Easy E said. Stargrunt II, one of the better sci-fi skirmish games IMO, used the die-type as skill, and flowed pretty well. As you said, the main thing you have to watch for is die-roll modifiers, as a +1 is much more impactful on a d4 than a d12. You can play with shifting the die type up or down based on modifiers (that also works reasonably well; I'm using that system in one of my WIP games).

I will say you can get some fairly swingy results whenever you use any system that relies on a single die. If you want more of a bell curve in your results, multiple dice (whether pool of successes or added towards target number) can be smoother for that.

It also kinda depends on what you like the "feel" of more: do you like chucking handfuls of dice and sorting results, or do you like tossing a single die and doing some simple math? Both are valid, though do have a slightly different feel.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I favour dice pools and numbers of successes, as it seems more intuitive to say "I have skill X so roll X many dice, they have defence Y so every roll over Y is a success" than to say "I have skill X so have to pick up an X sided die, they have defence Y so pick up a Y sided die, and then we roll off".

I think the two are both effective, but I feel that it would be more common for someone to say "Wait, is that the D10 or the D12 that I just rolled? It was meant to be a D12" than "Was I meant to roll 10 dice or 12?" Most people are only familiar with the D6, so a whole array of different dice may scare some people off, and confuse others.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman




Once upon a time, I planned on responding in a timely fashion. Then life happened.

@Easy E
I have done both, and both are good mechanics.

What made you consider the change in the first place? Feedback? Playtest results? Headspace?


It was mostly a headspace thing, especially in terms of representing advancements or injuries in a campaign. A dice pool scales much more readily in that regard (ex: an injury removes a die from a relevant pool, while an advancement adds one), but it can create a sort of 'impossible to win' scenario that I want to avoid in wargames, such as an attack having such a low chance of having any effect that the players are wasting their time rolling it out. Hence, I'm waffling on the consideration.

@Valander
The 'feel' was a big consideration. I do think pitching fistfuls of d6's feels much more satisfying, but mechanically speaking the direct comparison method results in faster play.

@some bloke
I feel like anyone that might have been scared off by an array of dice would have already been scared off at the prospect of learning a wargame. I also feel like any intuitiveness might depend on the background of the player in question. But now that you mention it, a screw-up in the direct comparison method would be much easier/less painful to remedy. If a player rolls the wrong die on an attack and it gets noticed, at the absolutely maximum 4 dice will have to be rerolled (assuming both the attack and defender are rolling twice and taking the highest/lowest). If two players are rolling 10+ dice for a die pool, it's much easier to roll the wrong number of dice and not notice, or include failures in successes or vice-versa. I feel like that puts me pretty firmly in the direct-comparison camp for purposes of ease-of-play.

But I do still have an issue with the d12-d20 gap. D16's exist, but they're quite rare for anyone's collection. That leads me to another consideration: what about capping the abilities/stats at a d12? It eliminates that gap in die sizes, and makes it less of a forgone conclusion when comparing the highest to the lowest.
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





Axle_Gear wrote:


But I do still have an issue with the d12-d20 gap. D16's exist, but they're quite rare for anyone's collection. That leads me to another consideration: what about capping the abilities/stats at a d12? It eliminates that gap in die sizes, and makes it less of a forgone conclusion when comparing the highest to the lowest.


I was going to suggest exactly this, but it seems you already got there. Having a D4-D12 system makes it all work in increments of 2, so great for balance. That doesn't mean you can't use D20's, but maybe only for super powerful effects which can still, as you stated before, flub by rolling a 1, so it's not like it's a foregone conclusion.

17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

Yeah, Stargrunt II didn't use the d20, and my own work that I'm doing with die types as skill levels I'm not using it either. The jump from d12 to d20 is too big to easily balance.

Oh, that reminds me, I had done an AnyDice graph on number of hits (that is, score over the other die) of a given die vs another die. https://anydice.com/program/256fb Enjoy.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/23 20:27:53


 
   
Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman




So I gave it some thought, and yah, like Tawnis and Valander I decided to nix the d20 for most purposes. However, I'm thinking of introducing a little more granularity by allowing the purchase of 'plus' dice for a stat. Basically, for +50% of the cost of a stat (which is still based on the number of faces a die has), you'd get to roll that die twice and take the higher result.

I would like to see how such a thing works in the wild. I already have rules in place for effects that can make models roll twice and take the better/worse for a stat, and rather than just making them additive/subtractive to arbitrary numbers of dice, I just ruled that if both advantage and disadvantage are applied to a roll that the player would just roll the straight die, regardless of how many advantages/disadvantages are in effect.

So the purchasing of stat dice would look like this, where a '+' indicates a die that is rolled twice and is taking the better result:

1 - 0 pts (can't voluntarily roll this stat)
d4 - 4 pts
d4+ - 6 pts
d6 - 6 pts
d6+ - 9 pts
d8 - 8 pts
d8+ - 12 pts
d10 - 10 pts
d10+ - 15 pts
d12 - 12 pts
d12+ - 18 pts

Movement as a stat is going to be a little trickier, being its own beast apart from the core stats. I was thinking movement could have up to three dice for a number of points equal to half the faces on any of those dice, as well as a number of fixed inches at one point apiece. I kind of want to force the purchase of at least one movement die in any model that will be capable of movement, since the game will allow premeasuring, and I want to keep some level of uncertainty/randomization.

And if anyone's wondering why I'm limiting it to three movement dice and not just making it unlimited, I had considered not having a cap but quickly realized players would just purchase piles of d4's for movement to make sure law of averages gives them a return.

As for the d20's, I've been giving them more thinks. I think they'd work well for randomizing charts in scenarios, and I'm already considering implementing a specialist/hero rule - say one model in you force can have one stat that's a d20, to represent some kind of 'above and beyond' status.
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: