Skill Resolution Mechanic Poll

[SinOfSlack]

I am working on a game system where the players create a character by assigning 5 of the classic polyhedrons D4 through D12 (D20s are reserved for specific other mechanics in the game) to 5 Traits (like Strength) and 5 classic Skill categories. This combination of Skills + Traits defines the overall competency of the character.
If a Trait check (such as a Strength check for an arm wrestling match) is required the player just rolls the assigned die and adds any misc bonuses then compares to a target difficulty number. For Skill checks however (including attack rolls), I want a Skill and a Trait to to determine the outcome. I have three options that I am thinking about.

Option 1: The player will roll both assigned dice and add the results together, then compare against a target difficulty or defense number. For example, a thief wants to use their Adventure Skill - Skullduggery to Pick a Lock. They have the D8 assigned to Adventure Skills. The GM decides lock picking is an Agility based check, which has the D12 assigned. The thief rolls D12+D8 and compares against the difficulty of the lock.

• This creates slightly more granularity and generates a results "curve", but means that misc modifiers (like a +1 bonus due to a magic item) less impactful.

Option 2: The player will roll both assigned dice and keep the higher roll, then compare against a target difficulty or defense number. Following the above example - the thief rolls D12 and D8 and compares the higher value against the difficulty of the lock.

• This keeps things a little more simple and inline within the same difficulty ranges for Trait checks. However it reduces granularity and results will tend to land +1 "above the mean" compared to a single die roll (that is not necessarily a problem though).

Option 3: The player rolls the Skill die only and checks their Trait die to see if it is a larger, smaller, or equal sized die. If the Trait die is larger, a +1 bonus is applied to the roll. If smaller, a -1 penalty is applied. If they are the same die, there is no modifier. Following the above example - the thief rolls D8+1 and compares against the difficulty of the lock.

• This might be considered more cognitively stressful to remember to compare dice and apply a modifier. While similar to Option 2, this results in a higher max value as well as higher average result.

 

[Taelin]

I prefer your option 2.

I feel that option 1 gives a rather wide range of possible totals probably making setting the target difficulty more problematic.

Option 3 would deal with that too but as you point out is harder work.

 

[Mankcam]

Option 2 plays quicker and feels more fun

 

[thebigh]

I like option 2. Easy to remember and implement.

It seems like with two different dice, the smaller gives some insurance against a terrible result while the larger gives the chance of a really good result.

 

[lgm]

I made a game using something very similar to option 1 that I'm currently running with my group. You roll a default 1d10 along with a die that represents your skill (or attribute). I only use this because it's a true post-apocalypse game where no one is left with great expertise. It also makes combat very 'swingy' so things can always go sideways. Someone rolling 1d10 + 1d4 can get still bash someone's head in that is using 1d10 + 1d12 and it not be a rare occurrence. It can be mitigated somewhat by having static defense (I do opposed rolls which makes combat crazier). I use a static 1d10 + Second Die where you're example uses two dice that are variable depending on skill and attribute which creates much more variation once again. And, as you suggest, a +1 is less meaningful so any bonus is a +2 minimum.

I only recommend Option 1 if you specifically want more unpredictable combat and skill because it suits the type of game you want. Otherwise, I see Option 2 as an easier and more fun route.

 

[PolarBlues]

Hard to say without the context.

If you are in doubt, Option 1 is probably more forgiving in terms giving you a bit more room to manage other modifiers, special cases, character differentiation and progression.

Option 2 might be slicker, but you could be painting yourself into a corner if you haven't already worked out how everything else works.

 

[JoeNuttall]

With option 2, in actual play if you had a d12 and a d4 you'd only bother rolling the "it doesn't really roll" d4 if you got a 1-3 on your d12, so it would feel like they used agility (say) which wasn't good enough but their skullduggery saved them. This is a nice feature.

Personally I'd go for an option 4 - roll two of the higher, and then if you do badly roll two of the lower to see if you save it.

(I'd avoid option 3 like the plague)

 

[xanther]

Odd man out.
I prefer Option 1 as do like the spread and how it makes modifiers kind of important but not as dominant as in Option 2.

Also Option 1 gives you more dynamic range to add more modifiers and not overwhelm the roll with modifiers like in Option 2. Further on that, a +4 modifier may not mean much to someone rolling d12+d8 but it can make the impossible possible for someone rolling d4+d4.

As to setting target numbers so it plays like you want. Option 1 does take some more work but not much, the probability curves for adding any two dice are easily calculated via on-line calculators or by hand.

Examples of how you can use this to advantage. You may want to place your average lock target number at 8 to 10, and a more difficult one at 10 to 12, etc. I'd call them levels of lock. It makes picking a Level 1 lock possible with d6 + d6 (perhaps a PC with thieving on the side) but makes it pretty reliably done for a core thief (d12+d8) and puts it out of the realm of those who ignored this aspect (d4 + d4). Now if any of those folks get special or magical tools a +1 to +4 for example could make it possible.

If I was designing would look at the curves for the most focused (d12 + d12) they should rarely fail a Level 1 task, and do well even at a Level 2 task, then important (d12 +d8), average (d6 +d 6), then completely ignored (d4 + d4) and calibrate my target numbers based on the probabilities that come out of those.

 

[lgm]

Examples of how you can use this to advantage. You may want to place your average lock target number at 8 to 10, and a more difficult one at 10 to 12, etc

I'd still be very careful about using Option 1 as it is very close to the Serenity Cortex mechanics (not Cortex+ or later versions). It is very easy to roll low... a lot! There was a high whiff factor every time I played it, which admittedly wasn't a huge amount. That was a big reason I used a default d10 to roll with a skill die for our current game instead. I ran the numbers on both methods and stuck with using a default die which was far better for using a target number on unopposed rolls while keeping opposed rolls on the wild side.

What I believe it really comes down to is what kind of mechanics will match with OP's game the best. Different mechanics work better or worse for different game intentions. Which is why D&D doesn't work well for every type of game.

 

[xanther]

It is very easy to roll low... a lot!

It may feel that way but statistics are what they are.

If one sets the target number so you make it 60% of the time, then you should over time hit it 60% of the time. It's exactly the same as hitting on a 8 or greater on a d20 (with roll high) and I believe few would call that a hard roll to make, or if understand modern d20 mechanics correctly a +12 total BAB (i.e. if you roll a d20, add all your BAB and hit on a 20 or higher).

If 60% chance of success is too low, it is really as simple as change the target number to set it at 75% if one wants failures to be 25% of the rolls. Now 25% could be easy too, 1 in 4.

It really goes more into psychology, for example, put in d20 terms few if any would have an issue with it being too hard.

Also, if you set the target number near the center of the curve (i.e. 60%) then a +1 modifier means a lot.

 

[lgm]

You're very right. I didn't like the probability in Serenity RPG at all by the numbers. My comment about that rpg was meant as a helpful warning rather than saying to definitely not use it. There's also something to be said for mechanics where the players can make a good judgement of their chances without having to do the math. Using two dice together isn't as easy to judge as simply rolling a d20 or d100 all the time. Having at least one of the two dice static helps but by no means as easy. Having both dice vary with different tasks makes judgement calls harder.

I'm definitely not against Option 1 as I've been gaming the last few years using a variation of it. I just know it's trickier to design the specific mechanic and it has a downside for players.


edit: clarifying absolute statements as not absolute

 

[WillPhillips]

If you want to play with multiple dice and sizes, go with either one or two.

Option 3 seems needlessly counterintuitive: to have a die value (begging to be used), but as a reference for if you add a static modifier seems like it would be hard to remember.

 

[Stumpydave]

Option 1 - the others seem to fiddly and will make some traits pointless (my D4 strenth is unlikely to ever factor into my success so why care a bout it?)

Or Option 4 - Don't use multiple types of dice (one of my biggest bugbears with gaming and the main reason I've never bothered with DnD is the mishmash of die types. Seriously, pick one!)

 

[SinOfSlack]

Thank you everyone for your replies. Sorry I didn't post again earlier - I was on summer vacation at the lake (and trying to avoid electronics for a while). Lots of great feedback! Taking the poll results in with commentary I tend to agree that Option 2 will be the best way to roll with this (pun intended).