|
Post by Cameron "Booker" on Feb 11, 2016 1:13:48 GMT
I spoke with Jeff a bit about this at the Super Bowl Party but I really feel like this game loses a lot of the strategy it could have because of the pure luck involved with a 20 sided die.
Obviously if you went as small as a 10 or possibly even 12 sided there would be other issues. Mainly the loss of the risk involved with going after higher difficulty moves because the gap between DC's would have to shrink with a smaller die.
ie. If the difference between a 10 point goal and 20 point goal is 1 or 2 there's no point in going for the former.
While this limits the ability for the game to be played in real life as a board game for the sake of the planning and strategy that makes an RP revolving around it fun I would suggest we go to a "14 - 16 sided die".
If this game were to ever be ported to a table top version you could easily go back to 20 sided as a board game is more aptly based on luck as the players won't be spending a week coming up with strategy.
Tl;dr For the sake of this RP we should use 14-16 sided die rolls and if it becomes a board game you could go back to D20
|
|
|
Post by Vester Lombard on Mar 2, 2016 18:15:19 GMT
I'm just now understanding why 2d10 does not make any sense for a Success/Fail system. Sure, it makes the rolls seem more average but it doesn't ACTUALLY change the game in the way we think it does. Think about it this way -- A roll of a 2 is actually the same thing as a roll of 10; they both fail. So does it matter that a 10 is more probable than a 2? Not at all. In a 1d20 system we perceive 1's and 20's as wildly random, when actually they are the same as any other failed or successful number. Therefore, a 2d10 system is only helpful when the numeric value actually matters. For example, if we were dealing damage with a 1d20, losing 2 HP is drastically different than losing 10 HP. The only effect 2d10 is having on Quidditch is the slightly greater effect of skill bonuses/IP's on Easier DC's, which is a weird and possibly unwanted result. If we want to achieve a different balance of success/failure, we are better off keeping 1d20 and adjusting the DC's. Walltur
|
|
|
Post by Quinn Starling on Mar 2, 2016 18:30:25 GMT
Should we also consider adjusting amount of DC/action type options? Because right now, some positions only have two options. With Keeper & Seeker only having medium & hard options, I'd personally feel bummed about playing those while my teammates have an easy option, allowing for more possible successes and lifted moral.
Should each position have say, 3 solid moves in 3 difficulty classes like before, just with adjusted DC levels? Or maybe having 4 classes would help spread that out? More successes on easy moves but still with the high risk/high reward at the other end if you're feeling bold?
OR should we try narrowing them down to just two classes/action types? If we did a d10, we could try the Easy DC at 5 and Hard DC at 8.
I'm not as good at running numbers/stats/probability as Walltur, but I figured if we're going to adjust DC levels and dice size, we should also factor in amount of moves/amount of difficulty classes per position.
|
|
|
Post by Vester Lombard on Mar 2, 2016 18:42:14 GMT
I agree, I ultimately want each skill to have the same number of action options.
An idea I had today: Each skill only has a Med and Hard DC. Then there is a neutral (non-skill) Easy DC options Dodge and Assist (and maybe even Rest requires a roll??) that anyone can use.
|
|
|
Post by Walltur on Mar 2, 2016 20:15:47 GMT
What I'm finding frustrating about the 2d10 system is the idea that you need to roll high twice in the same roll in order to achieve either a medium or high success, even before you factor in penalties and successes. Like Vester mentioned above, having modifiers having different effects on different difficulty levels really isn't that helpful. It felt more balance when all actions were effected equally.
I'd be good for returning to the 1d20 system, and changing the DC levels can help bring about more balance. I did have one option come to mind to make low effect actions more tempting to go for:
Synergy (Low DC only): If you were to fail one of these rolls, you may combine this roll (including modifiers) with another roll of the same type made by yourself or another player this round.
I realize its radical, but I think this would make even low rolls feel a bit more helpful, even if its just to help achieve a minimal effect. It could be a regular mechanic available to everyone or a talent.
Off-topic: I'm really digging the new Keeper actions. It'll be interesting balancing them back into the d20 system, I'd be happy to contribute more to shaping it.
|
|
|
Post by Vester Lombard on Mar 2, 2016 20:28:02 GMT
I also like the new Keeper actions. The main reason for changing it was that in the old system, Keepers raising the DC was effectively the same as Beaters lowering rolls. The positions need to all work differently.
|
|