Decline D20 is terrible so where are the 2D6 CRPGs?

[Drop Duck]

I do appreciate the rules and system discussion, but I feel the need the remind posters that the original intent of me starting this thread was to ask for CRPGs using these non-D20 rulesets. So far I have Dominions and Disco Elysium for 2D6; and Shadowrun (poor implementations) and Serpent in the Staglands for non-D20 systems. I've added the much requested 3D6 option to the poll and allowed users to change their votes.

I mean, I do like that you can get an even 50/50 split with 3d6

I don't, adding a dice modifier to 2D6 without other modifiers means that you go from unlikely to likely to succeed at a roll. What I also like about the system is how it flatten things out by necessity in order to not break the system. It's in many ways the opposite of the ridiculous power fantasies that later editions of D&D offers. Related to the system written about in the OP is Sword of Cepheus, which is the embodiment of what is good about such systems. It's a 140 pages long exercise in not just cutting the fat out, but also making a system feel right. It's back to the Sword and Sorcery pulpy roots. An experienced barbarian might be better than one that is just starting out, but the difference isn't so huge that the new one isn't entirely useless on an adventure with the older one. Not only that but due to how low the numbers are the XP you get after each adventure is recommended to be 1 (!) and it might take ten to improve your skill. So your character might have gotten familiar with a bow say, but improving that from being serviceable to mastery takes a lot of time and effort and you won't turn into a living god after a while, just better.

Once you go 3D6 you have already started the bloat and it will likely get worse from there. SoC isn't perfect mind you, some remnants of Traveller in there slightly clash with the S&S setting, barbarian being a career path essentially and such. But it gets the grit right, so several adventures later that huge ogre with a club the size of a man is still a challenge, it might be less of a challenge, but without the inflation and bloat he can still clobber you to a bloody mess.

The reviews are also a fun read, all of them enormously positive except for that single one star review that in my eyes praises the game.

After reading the system, won't be using it. While I like the character generation system (other than the couple near useless professions) and the combat system, the rules seems to less than supportive of long-term campaigns and player retention. The magic system appears to be a booby trap for unsuspecting players. IMO, you'd pretty much be setting yourself up to fail being a sorceror. It is billed as swords and sorcery, but it is more swords and swords and more swords based.

Almost bought Cepheus Atom, but found out about ever increasing corruption. I must ask, are any of the Cepheus-derived games long term campaign / player friendly or do they all contain some kind of 'gotcha!' rules aimed at the players? Both Swords and Atom seem actively player-hostile, like old time D&D with an adversarial DM, but baked into the rules.

Gygax would be proud.

Let me post another quote from a blog that shows the direction my nostalgia comes from. This was written by Omer Golan-Joel, an Israeli Hebrew translator and one of the minds behind the Cepheus line of books, and this hits strongly on my irritation with the general bloat in RPGs.

What is Proto-Traveller?

I have already written about old-school Traveller several years ago when I wrote of the "Three Creeps" - Modifier Creep, Complexity Creep, and Scale Creep - that is, gradual and (at least partially) unintentional processes of change in Traveller which made later Traveller products significantly different from the earlier game. But a recent discussion on the Citizens of the Imperium Forums brought forth again the subject of Proto-Traveller, that is the Traveller "Old-School" movement. For your reading comfort, pleasure, and ease, I will provide here a consolidated and clarified version of what I posted in that thread.

Proto Traveller is not necessarily a time period - as High Guard came in 1979, before the accepted 1980 "cut-off" point - and not necessarily a "tight" set of rules. It is an attitude, a style if you will. It is Traveller in the spirit of the first three books of the original boxed set, as well as early adventures, JTAS articles, and supplements. That is - small ship, small setting, simple rules. I'd also argue that it has a focus on civilian or quasi-civilian (ex-military) play rather than strictly military settings and plots as suggested by the weapon list in Book 1 and as opposed to the mercenary unit play of Book 4, the huge-combatant naval play of Book 5, and the strict military fleet-building play of Trillion Credits Squadron.

This Proto-Traveller attitude consciously and intentionally resists the Three Creeps - Complexity Creep, Modifier Creep, and Scale Creep.

Complexity Creep was introduced by Book 4 with its Advanced Character Generation system. Book 1 character generation was very simple and straightforward - and incredibly quick. Book 4 introduced a much more complex system for generating characters, and books 5-7 continued this trend. Book 5 put forth a ship design system which was far more complex than the one in Book 2. Book 8 suggested a highly complex robot design system similar to the similarly complex Striker wargame rules. The Proto-Traveller attitude resists this complexity and desires a return to the simplicity of Book 1/Supplement 4 character generation and of Book 2 ship design.

Modifier Creep began with Book 4 as well. The 2D6 curve used by Traveller is highly sensitive to modifiers, and hence the strictly limited skill acquisition in Book 1 character generation, as well as the moderate to-hit modifiers of most (though not all) Book 1 weapons. Book 4 introduced characters with much more skills and much higher skills. It also introduced advanced weaponry bearing massive to-hit modifiers guaranteeing auto-hits - and usually also auto-kills - on almost all targets. Books 5-7 continued this trend with their Advanced Character Generation systems. The Proto-Traveller attitude prefers smaller modifiers and more limited skills.

Scale Creep began with Book 5. Suddenly, instead of small, relatively affordable ships - you have massive dreadnoughts. Such vessels are monstrously expensive and thus require a similarly massive polity to support them. They are also far beyond the scale of player-centered starships, unless, of course, the players are Big Navy captains or admirals. Book 5 focuses on major naval engagements, not the affairs of merchants, scouts, and corsairs - or at most a mercenary company or a local small-scale naval patrol, as in Book 2. This soon escalated into a huge Imperium many Sectors across, supporting similarly huge navies. The Proto-Traveller attitude prefers smaller ships, smaller empires - and a greater focus on a small group of characters rather than on wider affairs of state and navy.

To expand my explanation above, another potential (fourth) "creep" in later Traveller was (possibly) "Military Creep". Note that the first book has ex-military characters who have clearly mustered out; they might have combat skills, but they are no longer soldiers. Also, note the Book 1 weapon list - all small arms, with the auto-rifle being the toughest gun around. Further, note the ship list - there are some paramilitary ships, even two "cruisers", but they are all small ships that a small PC-owned ship has a certain chance of defeating in combat, especially with missiles.

This is very similar to the Alien, Firefly, or The Expanse premise - characters might be ex-military, but they now work on civilian or at most paramilitary jobs, have a civilian starship (in The Expanse they do acquire a small military ship, but nevertheless not a big warship), and tot small arms. A single Xenomorph is a huge threat to the trader crew who at best have flamethrowers. Gangsters and outlaws with revolvers and shotguns are common foes. A real battleship is something you try to avoid or outsmart, not fire guns at. At most in Book 2 ship terms you can have a mercenary platoon, again armed with small arms for the most part.

Book 4 introduced military-grade weaponry and a big discussion of field artillery and armored warfare. Granted, it is a specific boo for mercenaries, but it did start the military "creep". Add to that huge battleships with all sorts of Naval guns in Book 5, and soon things start escalating into a very militarized outlook which, IMHO, MegaTraveller was the peak of it. It went from Firefly to Babylon 5 (both magnificent sci-fi, IMHO), from Dumarest to Honor Harrington. Especially the later seasons of Babylon 5 where the action often involved (wonderful) space battles between major combatants. There is of course nothing wrong with "Big Military" games - which are enormous fun - but it's very different than the more low-key picaresque adventures of a tiny starship's crew or very small mercenary detachment as depicted by the three first books.

Also, note that in Proto-Traveller you might deal with military themes such as in Kinunir or Chamax/Horde. But you always deal with them as civilians or ex-soldiers unwittingly caught in military affairs - PCs are never generals or fleet admirals or even the commanders of warships.

Finally, you should keep in mind the inspirational "source material" for Proto-Traveller, that is the science fiction stories it was inspired by. They usually had a picaresque element to them - usually, the protagonist, such as Dumarest, travelled the stars and ended up in all sorts of weird and cool situations. The focus was far less on large-scale setting construction and more about exotic and interesting locales to explore.

The Tales to Astound blog, for example, has some interesting and highly educational articles about this. Go and read them - he had some very interesting points indeed!

 

[Glop_dweller]

The Revised Recon RPG, by Palladium Books. As I recall [iirc], Recon uses D10 percentiles, and D6 for everything else.

https://palladiumbooks.com/modern/recon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recon_(role-playing_game)

 

[JamesDixon]

I do appreciate the rules and system discussion, but I feel the need the remind posters that the original intent of me starting this thread was to ask for CRPGs using these non-D20 rulesets.

Just because you don't like the answers you got doesn't mean you can disregard it.

 

[Alex]

I do appreciate the rules and system discussion, but I feel the need the remind posters that the original intent of me starting this thread was to ask for CRPGs using these non-D20 rulesets.

Just because you don't like the answers you got doesn't mean you can disregard it.

Well, he is pointing to something that is in the thread title itself, so he has a point of it going off topic.

Still, I would argue that any discussion that concerns tabletop gaming still apply in a way because CRPGs are a genre defined by emulating the tabletop games. Still, perhaps some thought on how this applies to computer games is warranted.

(...snip)

I mean, I do like that you can get an even 50/50 split with 3d6

I don't, adding a dice modifier to 2D6 without other modifiers means that you go from unlikely to likely to succeed at a roll. What I also like about the system is how it flatten things out by necessity in order to not break the system. It's in many ways the opposite of the ridiculous power fantasies that later editions of D&D offers. Related to the system written about in the OP is Sword of Cepheus, which is the embodiment of what is good about such systems. It's a 140 pages long exercise in not just cutting the fat out, but also making a system feel right. It's back to the Sword and Sorcery pulpy roots. An experienced barbarian might be better than one that is just starting out, but the difference isn't so huge that the new one isn't entirely useless on an adventure with the older one. Not only that but due to how low the numbers are the XP you get after each adventure is recommended to be 1 (!) and it might take ten to improve your skill. So your character might have gotten familiar with a bow say, but improving that from being serviceable to mastery takes a lot of time and effort and you won't turn into a living god after a while, just better.

Once you go 3D6 you have already started the bloat and it will likely get worse from there. SoC isn't perfect mind you, some remnants of Traveller in there slightly clash with the S&S setting, barbarian being a career path essentially and such. But it gets the grit right, so several adventures later that huge ogre with a club the size of a man is still a challenge, it might be less of a challenge, but without the inflation and bloat he can still clobber you to a bloody mess.

The reviews are also a fun read, all of them enormously positive except for that single one star review that in my eyes praises the game.

(snip...)

I don't think 2d6s or 3d6s matter much for "bloat". If you play GURPS as a more human, rather than "super-human" game in a fantasy setting; a huge ogre is going to be dangerous no matter your level.

What I do think games with more dice in them tend to bring is a bit more of attention to detail. 2d6 systems seem to be more used by games that try to abstract away a lot of details; while games that tend to thrive on those also seem to have a tendency of choosing different rolling methods.. Since I like my games to have more attention to detail and more "crunchy" if you will, I tend to prefer these systems. And, also because of that, I do like the ability to represent a 50/50 chance with a dice roll. If you are facing someone who is completely evenly matched, then having 50/50 (say, perhaps as the result of a clone spell) having a 50/50 chance of something is likely to come up and I would prefer if the system represented that in a clear way.

 

[JamesDixon]

I do appreciate the rules and system discussion, but I feel the need the remind posters that the original intent of me starting this thread was to ask for CRPGs using these non-D20 rulesets.

Just because you don't like the answers you got doesn't mean you can disregard it.

Well, he is pointing to something that is in the thread title itself, so he has a point of it going off topic.

Still, I would argue that any discussion that concerns tabletop gaming still apply in a way because CRPGs are a genre defined by emulating the tabletop games. Still, perhaps some thought on how this applies to computer games is warranted.

(...snip)

I mean, I do like that you can get an even 50/50 split with 3d6

I don't, adding a dice modifier to 2D6 without other modifiers means that you go from unlikely to likely to succeed at a roll. What I also like about the system is how it flatten things out by necessity in order to not break the system. It's in many ways the opposite of the ridiculous power fantasies that later editions of D&D offers. Related to the system written about in the OP is Sword of Cepheus, which is the embodiment of what is good about such systems. It's a 140 pages long exercise in not just cutting the fat out, but also making a system feel right. It's back to the Sword and Sorcery pulpy roots. An experienced barbarian might be better than one that is just starting out, but the difference isn't so huge that the new one isn't entirely useless on an adventure with the older one. Not only that but due to how low the numbers are the XP you get after each adventure is recommended to be 1 (!) and it might take ten to improve your skill. So your character might have gotten familiar with a bow say, but improving that from being serviceable to mastery takes a lot of time and effort and you won't turn into a living god after a while, just better.

Once you go 3D6 you have already started the bloat and it will likely get worse from there. SoC isn't perfect mind you, some remnants of Traveller in there slightly clash with the S&S setting, barbarian being a career path essentially and such. But it gets the grit right, so several adventures later that huge ogre with a club the size of a man is still a challenge, it might be less of a challenge, but without the inflation and bloat he can still clobber you to a bloody mess.

The reviews are also a fun read, all of them enormously positive except for that single one star review that in my eyes praises the game.

(snip...)

I don't think 2d6s or 3d6s matter much for "bloat". If you play GURPS as a more human, rather than "super-human" game in a fantasy setting; a huge ogre is going to be dangerous no matter your level.

What I do think games with more dice in them tend to bring is a bit more of attention to detail. 2d6 systems seem to be more used by games that try to abstract away a lot of details; while games that tend to thrive on those also seem to have a tendency of choosing different rolling methods.. Since I like my games to have more attention to detail and more "crunchy" if you will, I tend to prefer these systems. And, also because of that, I do like the ability to represent a 50/50 chance with a dice roll. If you are facing someone who is completely evenly matched, then having 50/50 (say, perhaps as the result of a clone spell) having a 50/50 chance of something is likely to come up and I would prefer if the system represented that in a clear way.

Fair point and I agree with you that TTRPGs need to be considered since CRPGs are based off of them.

His definition of bloat is off since it means to make things needlessly complex. In Hero System, the modifiers range from -5 to +5 with most being in the 1 or 2 range. Each -1/+1 is 16.7% adjustment of the dice roll, so that -5/+5 is a swing of 83.5% against/for the character. That's not bloat, but taking into environmental factors. Trying to conceal a rifle is a -5 to your concealment roll i.e. damn near impossible to pull off just like it would be in real life.

Due to how the entire system is set up to make player characters to be competent there doesn't need to be many modifiers in place to get them to succeed in skill rolls. Almost all of the skill modifiers in Hero System are situational that impact high stress not normal situations. This is because the system assumes that a character is competent enough to do their job in that skill.

He prefers his characters to be zeros that are worthless in every situation as he favors of a 2d6 linear pool that has you failing most of the time. That's without the modifiers that will boost the character's skill to be competent.

EDIT: Drop Bear putting a shit emote on my reply only shows how much of a fucking retarded piece of shit you are. If you can't handle adult discussions then get off the internet you waste of oxygen.

 

[Drop Duck]

Still, I would argue that any discussion that concerns tabletop gaming still apply in a way because CRPGs are a genre defined by emulating the tabletop games. Still, perhaps some thought on how this applies to computer games is warranted.

Agreed, this is in the CRPG section of the forum. I don't mind you talking about the rules or systems, it's just that the relationship to the computer game medium is at risk of getting lost. I know I'm not helping much myself, but that's because I want to get away from the D20 in CRPGs and don't know if there are any adaptions of these systems in computer games.

I don't think 2d6s or 3d6s matter much for "bloat". If you play GURPS as a more human, rather than "super-human" game in a fantasy setting; a huge ogre is going to be dangerous no matter your level.

This is more in regards to general design philosophy, by keeping the numbers low and making modifiers count so much that leaves less room for it. 3D6 is also good, it's just that when it becomes much more than that it tends to spiral out of control. GURPS is a bad example I think, not because of the system itself, but because it is so generic and modular. It can be anything you make of it, IIRC. Yes, you can keep it a low fantasy adventure and make it similar to CoP or a Conan story if you will, but you can also play the Transhuman Space book for example and then there are sentient AIs and the scope is not just bigger but the possibility space runs into the same issues of potential bloat as anything else.

What I do think games with more dice in them tend to bring is a bit more of attention to detail. 2d6 systems seem to be more used by games that try to abstract away a lot of details; while games that tend to thrive on those also seem to have a tendency of choosing different rolling methods.

Now there is a point which takes us back to to video game discussion. I have pointed this out before in an earlier post, but perhaps I should expand on it. I have made it very clear that I prefer systems that gives you a very board-game experience, that are simple but effective at what they do. Abstraction is one of the great things about RPGs if you ask me, that it is very much a game. Since you have an opposing view and prefer simulationist systems, then do you think that CRPGs should move in that direction even more? If you have this desire for detail and different systems then is a move towards doing away with dice rolls entirely something desirable? Because there is this crowd among RPG players that have this stance, that the perfect RPG would not have dice rolls at all, the computer would calculate muscle mass, the exact speed, etc, and instead of a pen and papery game you would end up with a fantasy equivalent of a submarine or airplane simulator running on your PC.

 

[Drop Duck]

EDIT: Drop Bear putting a shit emote on my reply only shows how much of a fucking retarded piece of shit you are. If you can't handle adult discussions then get off the internet you waste of oxygen.

There is no need to be upset. I rated your post shit because I very plainly listed the responses I had gotten in the opening of the post that you quoted.

 

[KateMicucci]

I don't like D&D/pathfinder rules but the type of dice it uses is low on my list of complaints.

Tops are:

1. boring combats for non-casters
2. bad armor system
3. character creation is at the same time both overcomplicated and yet so rigid that I can't make exactly the kind of character I want
4. HP bloat
5. Low level magic is boring, mostly spamming pre-buffs for piddly +1/+2 bonuses

 

[JamesDixon]

Agreed, this is in the CRPG section of the forum. I don't mind you talking about the rules or systems, it's just that the relationship to the computer game medium is at risk of getting lost. I know I'm not helping much myself, but that's because I want to get away from the D20 in CRPGs and don't know if there are any adaptions of these systems in computer games.

This is more in regards to general design philosophy, by keeping the numbers low and making modifiers count so much that leaves less room for it. 3D6 is also good, it's just that when it becomes much more than that it tends to spiral out of control. GURPS is a bad example I think, not because of the system itself, but because it is so generic and modular. It can be anything you make of it, IIRC. Yes, you can keep it a low fantasy adventure and make it similar to CoP or a Conan story if you will, but you can also play the Transhuman Space book for example and then there are sentient AIs and the scope is not just bigger but the possibility space runs into the same issues of potential bloat as anything else.

Now there is a point which takes us back to to video game discussion. I have pointed this out before in an earlier post, but perhaps I should expand on it. I have made it very clear that I prefer systems that gives you a very board-game experience, that are simple but effective at what they do. Abstraction is one of the great things about RPGs if you ask me, that it is very much a game. Since you have an opposing view and prefer simulationist systems, then do you think that CRPGs should move in that direction even more? If you have this desire for detail and different systems then is a move towards doing away with dice rolls entirely something desirable? Because there is this crowd among RPG players that have this stance, that the perfect RPG would not have dice rolls at all, the computer would calculate muscle mass, the exact speed, etc, and instead of a pen and papery game you would end up with a fantasy equivalent of a submarine or airplane simulator running on your PC.

You're coming at the problem in the wrong direction. You are looking at the dice in a vacuum and expecting it to work a certain way, which is TTRPG Traveller. (You brought in the TTRPG into this discussion). You failed to account for the mathematics involved in said dice. That's what my post was all about. It's about the mathematical probabilities and how the system views the character inside it. You prefer your characters to be complete and utter morons that fail in their normal jobs over 50% of the time. There are those of us that prefer our characters to be competent and succeed in their jobs over 50% of the time. Would you keep a person around if they failed in their job over 50% of the time? Nope, you'd hire the guy that is successful over 50% of the time.

The dice mechanics are system agnostic and can be used in any system you want to cook up.

You claim that modifiers are bloat. They aren't as they are a method to either punish or reward characters in their actions. In a linear system like D20, each +1/-1 is a flat 5%. In 2D6 it's variable percentage depending upon the number that is rolled. In 3d6 it's a flat 16.7%. D20 is swingy while 3d6 is not.

GURPS and Hero System is a toolkit. You decide what you want to use or not. You don't use Star Hero in a Fantasy Hero setting. You could, but why?

RPGs are not board games and you shouldn't mix the two. It has been tried repeatedly and the end result was always a failure. Stick to one or the other, but not both.

There is no need to be upset. I rated your post shit because I very plainly listed the responses I had gotten in the opening of the post that you quoted.

I'm not upset by a retard that can't think critically. I used your own basis of the original post of a TTRPG. You didn't like that and decided to be a child and rate a post shit because you didn't like the answer.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

A lot of cRPGs are technically d100.

I do appreciate the rules and system discussion, but I feel the need the remind posters that the original intent of me starting this thread was to ask for CRPGs using these non-D20 rulesets

 

[Drop Duck]

RPGs are not board games and you shouldn't mix the two.

RPGs are just a spinoff of wargames.

You claim that modifiers are bloat.

There can be modifier bloat, but the real bloat is in numbers and scale.

The dice mechanics are system agnostic and can be used in any system you want to cook up.

I don't think they are.

5. Low level magic is boring, mostly spamming pre-buffs for piddly +1/+2 bonuses

This is due to the dice system and modifier & number bloat. A +1 should make a noticeable difference that is felt.

 

[JamesDixon]

RPGs are just a spinoff of wargames.

War games are not board games like Sorry or Monopoly. Nice try though. If you had originally said that you were referring to war games I'd answer differently. Even Chainmail is incompatible with D&D/AD&D. That's why they had to put out Battle System that used the AD&D 2E rules. However, certain systems like Hero System is able to handle mass combat just fine. This is because the units used are built using the base rules and points assigned due to the point cost of the default unit.

There can be modifier bloat, but the real bloat is in numbers and scale.

Incorrect, bloat is from the rules. Good systems limit the amount of modifiers and constrain the rolling window to a specific range.

I don't think they are.

They are as someone that has designed numerous RPGs and setting books. The dice rolls are just the resolution mechanics and give the scale on how resolution is done.

 

[Alex]

(...snip)

Now there is a point which takes us back to to video game discussion. I have pointed this out before in an earlier post, but perhaps I should expand on it. I have made it very clear that I prefer systems that gives you a very board-game experience, that are simple but effective at what they do.

Personally, I think being like a board game is the last thing an RPG should try to. Sure, if you want you can have more or less complex games. Games that are more focused in some kind of activity or loop and games that are more "sandboxy". But I do think a crucial feature of of an RPG is giving freedom to the players in a way that is impossible in a "closed" game, like chess or settlers of Catan or even a computer game. If a player wants to drive his dagger up the beholder's eye, there are a lot of ways to deal with that; but one way I think has no place in an RPG is treating this, and any other possible idea the player might have as simply window dressing to saying "I attack

Abstraction is one of the great things about RPGs if you ask me, that it is very much a game.

In order to play an RPG, it is necessary to both abstract away several things and to completely ignore others. When you are building a dungeon, for instance, you certainly won't think of all the possible issues, problems and uses someone might have come across when building it. Maybe your dungeon only makes sense if, when it was build, it stood between two cities, but you will never consider if there were such two cities and what they were like. Most probably, you won't consider how the load of the whole constructions is being distributed along columns, walls and what not. If this kind of thing is an issue at all in the DM's mind, then it probably will be heavily abstracted; like perhaps a stability rating that might be tested or downgraded if the players cast too many disintegrate spells, or stone to mud or maybe even earthquakes while in there.

This is necessary for the game, of course. But it is also necessary for the game; for the RPG to be more specific, for the DM to be able to bring up things that matter and affect how the game is played according to the adventure; and for the player's actions to do so likewise according to what is done specifically. For instance, the whole talk about the structural integrity of the dungeon may sound a bit ridiculous; but it might well be an important aspect of an specific adventure. Maybe the dungeon you are exploring is not so stable anymore and cave ins have destroyed much of it already... or maybe the DM just wants to give some consequences for the liberal use of high level spells to explore the dungeon. How this is done is again a matter or preference; systems can be simple or complex. Maybe you want a whole called shots system fro when your players try to hit a specific body part of a monster. Maybe you could even go with something like Aces & Eights shot clock, where you would put a target over a silhouette similar to whatever you are facing and calculate where the shot ends up. Or maybe, you can just give a flat penalty for the player and come up with a special effect if his called shot hits.

The point is that a game system needs to have a certain flexibility to consider these issues if/when they come up, rather than being forced to stay on a certain abstraction level. However, frequently this can be unworkable because the whole game was thought on a certain level of abstraction so that consequences and conditions for such actions may not matter, and people may end up feeling that someone is "cheating" by trying to do something outside of the system.

Since you have an opposing view and prefer simulationist systems, then do you think that CRPGs should move in that direction even more? If you have this desire for detail and different systems then is a move towards doing away with dice rolls entirely something desirable? Because there is this crowd among RPG players that have this stance, that the perfect RPG would not have dice rolls at all, the computer would calculate muscle mass, the exact speed, etc, and instead of a pen and papery game you would end up with a fantasy equivalent of a submarine or airplane simulator running on your PC.

The problem with simulating everything is that it is actually rather hard to do so. Dwarf Fortress is probably one of the best attempts at that, but it still has a very long way to go. Usually, I think it would be better for CRPGs to focus on simulating some things that would actually matter given the context of the game. Simulating hunger mechanics in a game where food is plentiful for instance might be pointless, or not add much at least, for instance.

But, on the issue of dice rolls; this is something that I believe could always be included. While a detailed enough simulation might not warrant this kind of thing at all; such detailed simulation would also be too complex to play and to program. For instance, let's take a simple test like a strength context between two people; maybe you charged an enemy and want to see if you managed to push him back. In a table top RPG, there is a whole lot that is left undefined. For instance, how well is his footing at the exact moment of the impact? Is the particular patch of ground you are on slippery? Wet? Maybe slimy? Maybe your lack of potassium will give you a muscular spasm? The issue with all of these is that it doesn't make sense to make the player account for all of this even if you can make the computer do so. In some cases, it might not even be possible; how do you account for correct or incorrect spell-casting? Or correct use of scientific skills in a science-fiction game?

I don't think it is either possible or desirable to do away with dice rolls in computer RPGs. But I do think it is possible to have rules for tabletop RPGs that can better take into account different levels of abstractions; and this in turn can be accounted for in CRPGs in some way by giving interesting options to the players that are not as clear cut as a list of all possible actions at all times. A good (perhaps the classic) example of what I am talking about is blowing up the radscorpion cave in Fallout.

 

[Drop Duck]

In a table top RPG, there is a whole lot that is left undefined. For instance, how well is his footing at the exact moment of the impact? Is the particular patch of ground you are on slippery? Wet? Maybe slimy? Maybe your lack of potassium will give you a muscular spasm? The issue with all of these is that it doesn't make sense to make the player account for all of this even if you can make the computer do so.

There is a segment of players that want that sort of thing in CRPGs and when you put it like that it doesn't sound too bad. Slipping on a wet patch during a swordfight and then getting a spasm in a leg is fairly interesting. A nightmare to play in tabletop, but the computer can keep track of it all.

In order to play an RPG, it is necessary to both abstract away several things and to completely ignore others.

I'm well aware, mate. This was a comment within the context of RPGs within video games. What makes RPGs stand out as a genre is that they are more highly abstracted than other games, putting them closer to board games, wargames, etc, things that humans can run. We can play Twilight Struggle or Warhammer or Catan with a provided ruleset, but we can't simulate hundreds of NPCs going about their lives with their individual needs and so on. There are for example things in Paradox games which would be untenable in a physical game.

The point is that a game system needs to have a certain flexibility to consider these issues if/when they come up, rather than being forced to stay on a certain abstraction level.

In my mind these games are always best when they aim to stay at one abstraction level and stick to it to create coherency. In pen and paper at least, I haven't made my mind up on computer games yet. Called shots is, unless the whole game is on that level, fat that ought to be cut out imho.

 

[Kev Inkline]

The thing about d20 is that it gives each number the same chance of rolling.
2d6 and 3d6 tend towards averages more, which means you see fewer critical successes and critical failures.

Which system you prefer really depends on how much randomness you like there to be in your game.

I wonder why crpgs are so hang up on dice anyways? To make them intuitive to players? I mean nothing prevents you have a more exotic distribution in a computerized setting. Like a Levy distribution for instance. Granted, that might turn out freakish, but why not.

 

[KateMicucci]

The thing about d20 is that it gives each number the same chance of rolling.
2d6 and 3d6 tend towards averages more, which means you see fewer critical successes and critical failures.

Which system you prefer really depends on how much randomness you like there to be in your game.

I wonder why crpgs are so hang up on dice anyways? To make them intuitive to players? I mean nothing prevents you have a more exotic distribution in a computerized setting. Like a Levy distribution for instance. Granted, that might turn out freakish, but why not.

I'm not good at math, but if I understand this, don't you get that with exploding dice?

 

[Kev Inkline]

The thing about d20 is that it gives each number the same chance of rolling.
2d6 and 3d6 tend towards averages more, which means you see fewer critical successes and critical failures.

Which system you prefer really depends on how much randomness you like there to be in your game.

I wonder why crpgs are so hang up on dice anyways? To make them intuitive to players? I mean nothing prevents you have a more exotic distribution in a computerized setting. Like a Levy distribution for instance. Granted, that might turn out freakish, but why not.

I'm not good at math, but if I understand this, don't you get that with exploding dice?

Not quite, since it's a convergent geometric series, it just scales the expected value of a single die by N/(N-1), where the N is the number of faces on the die. (I had to refresh my knowledge on this, it's not straightforward intuitive, now is it? )

 

[Harthwain]

Disco Elysium uses 2d6. I guess it wasn't innovative after all.

Did anyone ever claim it was innovative for Disco Elysium to use 2D6? The developers themselves said they used 2D6, because it's very simple:

Just roll two six sided dice and add however much you have in the Skill that represents what you’re up to. [...] A normal task takes 10 or above to complete. [...] That’s it. It took us fifteen years, five designers and a handful of dedicated players to come up with it. It’s the simplest role playing system our minds could muster – with the maximum amount of depth and tension hidden in the folds. We call it Metric.

Source: https://discoelysium.com/devblog/20...-arguably-worlds-simplest-role-playing-system

We only use six sided dice. We prefer the Babylonian system of sixes to the Roman system of tens. (Six is a more comprehensible number, ten is too vague and philosophical and includes a zero). If we have a number in the rules – 4, 3 or 6 – we will reuse it as often as possible. All numbers fold back into themselves, everything is it’s own cap, never multiply, never produce long formulas.

Source: https://discoelysium.com/devblog/2016/09/30/design-ethos-role-playing-system

One big advantage of having two dice is the critical success and the critical failure are less common, because you have to roll 1+1 or 6+6 for either, which is more difficult than achieving the same result with 1d6. And statistically you have better chances of rolling 6-7-8, meaning your stats are more meaningful than the rolls. This is a good way of keeping some of the randomness in, while making the stats to matter more than a blind luck. In addition, you can further modify the rolls beforehand with your actions (both positively and negatively). With numbers being small this can be a significant bonus.

 

[Butter]

Disco Elysium uses 2d6. I guess it wasn't innovative after all.

Did anyone ever claim it was innovative for Disco Elysium to use 2D6? The developers themselves said they used 2D6, because it's very simple:

Just roll two six sided dice and add however much you have in the Skill that represents what you’re up to. [...] A normal task takes 10 or above to complete. [...] That’s it. It took us fifteen years, five designers and a handful of dedicated players to come up with it. It’s the simplest role playing system our minds could muster – with the maximum amount of depth and tension hidden in the folds. We call it Metric.

Source: https://discoelysium.com/devblog/20...-arguably-worlds-simplest-role-playing-system

We only use six sided dice. We prefer the Babylonian system of sixes to the Roman system of tens. (Six is a more comprehensible number, ten is too vague and philosophical and includes a zero). If we have a number in the rules – 4, 3 or 6 – we will reuse it as often as possible. All numbers fold back into themselves, everything is it’s own cap, never multiply, never produce long formulas.

Source: https://discoelysium.com/devblog/2016/09/30/design-ethos-role-playing-system

One big advantage of having two dice is the critical success and the critical failure are less common, because you have to roll 1+1 or 6+6 for either, which is more difficult than achieving the same result with 1d6. And statistically you have better chances of rolling 6-7-8, meaning your stats are more meaningful than the rolls. This is a good way of keeping some of the randomness in, while making the stats to matter more than a blind luck. In addition, you can further modify the rolls beforehand with your actions (both positively and negatively). With numbers being small this can be a significant bonus.

I was joking about people calling it innovative in general when mechanically it relies on the same dice-rolling as Monopoly.

 

[Faarbaute]

I like D20 in fantasy and D100 in modern/scifi. Mechanically they are very simliar but one reminds me of natural measurements like a foot or an elbow, while the other makes me think of the metric system, decimals and artificial precision.

These things are important to the aesthetics of your game, in the same way your UI design is important, not just for it's functionality.

I generally don't care for the rest for reasons outlined in the thread allready.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Games should use systems similar to the original Deadlands. Roll XdY + Z, take highest. It allows you to simulate the range of ability, reliability of practice/experience, and item improvements in a single roll. It also avoids the bloat of linear systems and how they break down at either extreme of their range.