Hey, thanks for the shout out! It was interesting seeing you break down my idea and talk about it! I think you basically nailed it, but there are a few things I might be able to clarify about my ideas, as that was just a brief summary, and perhaps not worded as clearly as possible. In the video at 2:36, you nailed that the attribute, and by extension the dice, represent a character’s maximum potential for that attribute. A strength attribute score of d8 for example means that 8 is the maximum amount of strength that a character could potentially apply to an action at that time. The number of dice represent their consistency at a particular type of action. Nailed it again at 3:44. My wording seemed to cause a bit of confusion at 5:42. I used the term "proficiency" to describe this in an attempt to stay close to the parlance of DnD, but you could easily call it skill/experience/training/aptitude etc. When I said “strength based skill check,” I meant a skill check (say Athletics) where strength is the relevant attribute for the roll. In my system you don’t gain proficiency for an attribute (like strength), you would gain it toward particular skills (like Athletics), just like in DnD. The difference of course is that instead of that proficiency adding a static modifier, it’s increasing the number of dice you roll for those checks, and in doing so, improving the reliability of the results. So a character attempting an Athletics check would roll a number of dice corresponding to 1 + their level of proficiency with Athletics, and the type of dice would be determined by the character's strength score (say 3d10 for a character with a 10 in Strength, and two points of proficiency in Athletics). As for the issue of gaining proficiency without increasing the relevant attribute, honestly I haven’t nailed down the progression rules for my system yet, but that’ll be an interesting question to consider once I get there. I plan on allowing both attributes and “proficiency” to be increased, but again, not sure exactly how. The increasingly swingy nature of the dice as your attributes increase is a natural byproduct of characters having a broader potential range. If the floor is always the same (which I think it should be, because everyone can mess up), having a higher ceiling means having a greater range. Rolling with more dice (which represents having more skill/experience/proficiency at a particular task) increases your odds of doing well and gives more consistency of results. Rolling a single die would only really occur if a character who has no significant skill/experience/training in a task attempts it (say someone who has no experience pickpocketing attempts to steal from someone), or they are facing penalties that would decrease their chances of success, effectively cancelling out the bonuses afforded by their “proficiency.” Even though larger dice are more swingy, they're still a meaningful advancement above smaller dice, both in maximum and average rolls. It’s interesting that you mention ideal circumstances at 2:52, and talk about it more starting at 4:14. I didn’t talk about it in the original post, but my system also includes bonuses and penalties. The default state (no bonuses or penalties) would be to assume a certain amount of stress. This is so you don’t have to constantly apply penalties in combat, for example. Attempting an action in non-stressful or advantageous circumstances could grant a bonus, whereas extraordinarily stressful or disadvantageous circumstances could warrant penalties. Typically a bonus or penalty would be adding or removing dice (increasing/decreasing your chance of performing to the peak of your capabilities). Penalties could never cause you to have no dice, instead causing your last remaining die to downgrade. More rarely, a bonus/penalty could cause you to upgrade/downgrade all the dice you roll, but this would only be in circumstances where the maximum potential of a character has been affected (extreme fatigue or an illness/poison weakening a character could downgrade their strength dice, for example). And for anyone interested in nerding out on probability math, the way I calculate probability for this system is ((d^n - f^n)/d^n)*100, where d = the highest value of the dice you're rolling, n = the number of dice you're rolling, and f = the highest failing value (so the DC -1 if ties count as successes). I think there's a more elegant form of this equation, but this is how I worked it out originally and remains the most intuitive for me. Basically d^n represents the total number of possible unique rolls for that number/type of dice, and f^n represents the number of rolls which result in failure. Subtracting the number of failing rolls from the total number of rolls (d^n - f^n) gives you the number of possible successful rolls. Divide that by the total number of possible rolls and multiply by 100 to get a percentage probability for hitting a particular DC with a given type and number of dice. So if you're rolling 3d6 with a DC of 4 (where ties succeed), it would be ((6^3 - 3^3)/6^3)*100 or ((216 - 27)/216)*100, or 87.5%. Comparing that to 1d6 with the same DC: ((6 - 3)/6)*100 or 50% and you can see how much adding dice improves your chances of rolling well. If the DC is 6, your chances with 3d6 are 42%, whereas with 1d6 they're only 16.6%. Of course I wouldn't expect players/DM's to do that math at the table! I'd include some easy to read charts showing the percentages for given DCs with different types/numbers of dice. I don't think it'd take long to develop an intuitive sense of appropriate DCs for given situations. Anyway thanks again for taking a look at my idea. It was interesting and informative. Looking forward to reading the comments on this one!
You are very welcome. Thank you for the additional information! There is a lot more going on here that I am sure people will be interested in. I am going to pin this post to the top of the comments so people will be more likely too see it and continue the conversation.
Reminds me of Kids on Bikes. They do attributes as dice pretty well. Six attributes, one for every die size. Dice can explode. Every failure grants an Adversity Token that can be used to buff rolls at 1:1. Players can also take half of their attribute die to pass tests, as long as they're not under pressure or having to make a split decision. There's also Kids on Brooms and Teens in Space. Brennan Lee Mulligan even made a noir reskin for their Mentopolis series.
Savage Worlds, and Cortex Prime do this too. If you are looking at using Die to represent how capable a character is, you need to research those systems. Another way to avoid the Wizard Barbarian stone problem is to lower the DC score for moving the stone for the Barbarian. It makes sense for the DC to be lower for a Barbarian than it would be for a Wizard in a case like that
I was thinking a lot about how this could easily move in a Coretex Prime direction. I am sure there will be people who would argue that the DC of the task should change based on who comes to pick it up. But, I am sure there is a system where that makes sense as well.
@@EHeathRobinson I have seen it when playing in D&D groups, and I like the idea. Some task would be easier or harder for different characters. It makes sense for locks to be easier to pick by rogues, for example, and it makes more sense that a Barbarian would have more lifting power than a mage. At the very least, it should be an optional house rule. A system like D&D is in depth enough to where you really don't need to change the difficulty level, because the stats reflect on that pretty well, for the most part. However, Cortex Prime isn't quite as in depth, because you use Dice to represent your "stats." So, if you want to really show that the Barbarian is physically stronger, you have to change the challenge ratings.
@@mr7oclock346 This is an interesting idea, but I feel like it's better handled by attribute and skill modifiers. The Barbarian's superior strength would indeed make lifting the rock easier, which is why they've got a +8 toward their attempt. I haven't played Cortex Prime yet (though I really should since I backed it on kickstarter), but if players or GMs feel the need to modify the DC for tasks on a per-character basis, I think that indicates a failure of the rule system to properly reflect the character's skills/advantages. I think it'd be better in the long run to adjust the modifiers for each character rather than requiring the DM to adjust the DC per character for each task. It also just makes more logical sense to me. The rock isn't lighter when the Barbarian tries to lift it (DC is static), they just bring more physical power to the attempt (higher modifier), making it easier for them to lift. To me a DC is like an objective measure of the difficulty of a task, with some characters being more capable of meeting that task (as reflected somehow in the mechanics of the character).
A solution to the leveling side of this system could be, training with a professional or reading a book on how to do something, as well as upgrading equipment could increase proficiency while actually exercising that ability or leveling up can change the attribute and increase the size of the dice.
A note on how you are looking at proficiency. Think about it as the ability to leverage your maximum. So a wizard who has a low score (d4) but a high proficiency understands how weak they are, but knows perhaps how to properly lift with their legs, get a proper grip and leverage. A barbarian with low proficiency, would just walk up and try to yet the bolder. The training isn't about increasing the die, but about increasing the character's utilization of the die. Also, looking at doing some kind of break down on these data points, as I was tinkering with a game system with a friend and I am not a fan of the chance system we currently have.
I agree that is how I would interpret it, especially in terms of strength. If you are using the classic D&D main abilities, there may be something equivalent for all of them. I can see "education" been proficiency in intelligence. Education helps you make the most of what you've got. Proficiency in Wisdom and Constitution might be harder. Or, it might be time to move to a new set of attributes.
Yeah, I think my poor wording in that comment lead to some confusion. Cleared it up (hopefully!) in my comment on this video, but the tl:dr version is when I was talking about a "strength based skill check" I was referring to something like the Athletics skill in DnD, and the proficiency would be for the skill (Athletics) not the attribute (Strength). Still, it lead to some interesting points in the conversation. I like how you describe it as your ability to leverage your maximum. That's exactly how I think of proficiency. It's training/aptitude/experience in a particular task that makes you more likely to perform it to the best of your physical or mental capability.
First video in a long time that actual talks about a new dice system! Thank you. Been looking for that inspiration for my own ttrpg system. Brewing up something fancy.. but ways to go still.
i think that this is by far my preferred method of representing PC ability. As in the real world few people are able to fully utilize their skills in stressful situations. By representing attributes as the upward potential of a character you can then using something like separate feats or skill granting bonuses to narrow the random element and show the characters ability to operate under pressure. And i think it holds an added benefit of being a functional check on the feeling of verisimilitude in a game. By forcing dice roles to conform to an expected range of narrative believability for a given character in specific scenes. Though i think it would be wise when not in stressful situations to just let players use either their max possible roll or the average of their ability dice plus modifiers without having to roll. As rolling is situations like this where there are no outside stressors or interference would break what i see as the implied logic of this type of system.
I agree, the biggest benefit of this type of system is the believability/verisimilitude. Keeping character's capabilities within fixed bounds per attribute helps eliminate scenarios that would destroy the suspension of disbelief. Although technically DnD has an expected range of outcomes (1 to 20 + mod). But there's so much randomness in the system, due to the imbalance between static modifier and d20, that the DCs have to be low enough that properly skilled/spec'd characters can still reliably hit them, and the result is that the DCs are low enough for unskilled/poorly spec'd characters can hit them too frequently on the virtue of a high die roll. I like the idea of having a static option for situations of low stakes/pressure instead of rolling. For my system I might use the average of their attribute die, plus their levels of proficiency in the chosen action. Having a level of reliability in those situations can help avoid a bad roll breaking the flow of narrative, and keep the game moving more quickly. It's a good idea.
This sounds like my own system. It's based around Fallout, but I'm trying to expend it in a more universal system. Your stats are between 1 and 10 with your dice being d4-1 to d12+4, odd to even increase the flat bonus, even to odd increase dice ranking.
@@stevenfletcher3389 Oh there's a lot of details in this game, but I don't think the "Talent Dice" system is one of them. It straight forward. Whenever you need a make a Talent Check just grab the right dice and roll.
"Roll XdY and pick the highest" is how i run my extemely homebrewed cairn campaigns. So intuitive, still allows for luck to be a factor while allowing people to be good at what thehre good at, and pairs wonderfully with a system that allows for "levels of success"
Started watching a few of these videos (those about using the d20 vs. 2d10) and while I was watching them I was thinking of this other solution of using multiple dice, and what a surprise in seeing that people had already suggested it! But then again, with this many people watching these videos, it was kind of inevitable. So, yeah, I like it. However... If you're using multiple types of dice, you will need a ton of dice in total. If you're going from d4s up to d12s (using the standard D&D dice and no d5s or d7s) you will need, what, at least 25 dice? Sure, people could roll fewer dice more times, but that isn't really ideal, is it? Unless you're using a digital dice roller of some kind (which even Google has one).
The system I am developing uses dice (d4 to d12) for stats. Dice explode, but a roll of 1 at any point (even on an explosion) fails. 4 is a success, 8 is 2 successes, 12 is 3 successes (etc)
Man years ago I was working on a system, 1000, 2000, 3000 (time periods), and proficiency dice were d10, d20, and d30, with stat modifier dice being d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and you roll both together and add. This reminds me of that.
I am a little late to the party here, but I have a game that I wrote up. It uses only a d20. 3 attributes, 3 skills instead of classes. Essentially everything is rolled on 1 table. It works really well. It is inspired by Tunnel Goons, Knave, and Cairn
I had one system, a dice-based one, where you had a small number of d6s assigned to your attributes, and d8s distributed to skills, then a small number of d10s for a luck pool, for pushing yourself, and when you want to make a roll, you take the d6(s) of the ability and the d8(s) of the skill, and any d10s if you have one to spare, roll, and each 6+ is a success, each 1 is a fail, makes skill trump base ability, usually, but there's still luck. for attacks, more successes than fails and beating the threshold means you hit, and extras bump damage, like a scaling critical. and racial ability bonuses are a once per round +1 to skills using that score, which could bump a 5 to a success, or bump a 1 off a fail. the whole thing is like 2 pages, so it's not a lot to learn, but my group is doing PF2e now, so we have a while before I can playtest it.
The more dice in your dice pool, the stronger the average numerical curve you will create. It makes lower and higher numbers increasingly harder to ever achieve the "more dice" you keep adding into the pool. Your trade off is ease of use (visually seeing a number of dice to roll) for gaining a much stronger curve. You can't get something for nothing is the key lesson with dice pools. In other words, with say a 10d10 dice pool as an example, you will be hovering very close to a score of 50 in almost every roll. Dice pools just reinforce a stronger average.
I'm creating a system where the higher the skill the smaller the die. Grandmasters roll a d4 and novices a d20. I also use a lot of the unusual dice in between. Roll 1 die, the difference effects the outcome.
I do not like most systems that do dice stepping. The result of a lot of practice is that your skill ceiling goes up but it especially means consistency, not more swingyness. I do like the idea of adding more dice and picking the best .. that could fix the probability problem but it creates fiction problem for me.. how are you training so that the skill ceiling doesn't go up too..
A friend of mine already has a system like this, it works well. Freeblades is the tabletop version but the roleplay version is Brightsword. Base target number is 4 and the dice run D4 all the way to D30. Skills and Attributes work off the same dice system. The dice also explode, and a 1 is a critical failure. Characters only have 2, 3, or 4 wounds. The system works that first the monster or character must be hit and they have a defense number. So in melee I would roll my d10, if that was my skill, and overcome a defense of 5. Then I may roll my damage dice... a sword may be a d8. I then must overcome the armor value of 4 for the monster to do one wound. Since dice explode if I overcome the armor by 10, I then would cause extra wounds. So a roll of 24 on the damage die is technically 3 wounds in the example above. There are talents and skills like Parry, or Diehard that shift the numbers needed and let the characters protect themselves as well.
Gaining proficiency might well be accomplished by improving technique and taking the max of multiple dice represents that nicely. For instance, I've been doing Pilates for the last few years. I don't think my overall strength has gone up notably, but what I can do I do a lot more reliably and with less strain. Before I took Pilates I might have been rolling a D6, say, and now I'm rolling max(D6,D6). If I did a bunch of strength training I might boost my die to D8 and thus be taking max(D8,D8), which is both more reliable and higher.
I like this system. I've been toying with a system like this for years. My similar system, not final yet, I've been replacing ability modifiers with dice. 1 through 6 are replaced with d4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20. Roll a d10, ability die, and weapon die of in combat. So a total of 3 dice. In combat tried to keep it simply. Total of dice minus armor class. Still a work in progress. Trying to eliminate all math. And make it a total dice system.
Have tried this d# as ability scores. I find with str checks, rolling in any system is unrealistic. Instead, GM sets a target number for the required strength. That's how heavy something is. If the PC strong enough you can lift it, if not, maybe two of you can lift it with combined str.
The stepped dice system you're describing is essentially a slightly different take on Advantage in D&D: roll N dice, take the highest result. This skews results towards the high end, and the more dice you're rolling, the higher the skew. I'm not a huge fan of single D20 rolls because of their swinginess, for the reasons outlined in the video. Your low-strength mage has a substantial chance of outperforming your high-strength barbarian at random intervals, and that doesn't feel like it fits the character archetypes at all. It makes it really hard for the players to feel that their characters are the people they're supposed to be. I think stepped dice for different levels of skill or native attributes combined with a pick-the-highest die pool approach goes a long way towards ameliorating this. It does have ramifications for the design of the game's target number space, though. If everybody rolls a single die of the same size, all target numbers are reachable for all characters (leaving aside the effects of flat modifiers for the moment). With stepped dice, every die size has access to a different T-space, and some target numbers are simply forever unreachable for certain characters (again, flat modifiers aside). Using multiple dice and taking the highest doesn't chance the T-space window that the character can access, it just makes higher numbers in the die's range more likely. Both skew and flat modifiers have their roles to play; they do very different things and they are both useful in their own areas of applicability. The trick is to come up with a system that balances the two of them and the target number space to come up with something that produces the gameplay feel that the game designer is aiming for. And that's easier said than done. I think you need to decide up front exactly what ability scores represent and what exactly skill levels represent in your system before you get down to the nuts and bolts of matching die roll mechanics to them. I will say that advantage/skew mechanics represent real-world learning curves a lot better than piling on flat modifiers does, if that sort of modelling is your thing. But if you use that for your primary gauge of skill, you have to take into account that your reachable target number space doesn't change unless the die size also does, and if that's too restrictive, it's time to start thinking about adding some flat modifiers to open the higher target number space up. Maybe flat mods for circumstances? The latter flips the 5e paradigm on its head. I think there's still a lot of unexplored territory here, and I love all the different variations that indie game designers are trying out these days.
So you guys just discovered Savage Worlds, and Mutant Year Zero system. That's cute. Maybe just scrap D&D, and just play a MUCH BETTER game like Savage Worlds, or ANY Free League game system. They are FAR SUPERIOR in virtually EVERY way possible!
Sort of. Basically assuming you don't use exploding dice, this ensures that only gifted people can succeed at difficult tasks. Only strong people can lift the boulder, and only smart people can solve the puzzle. However, it still allows for blunders by these people. Hulk can still fail to smash the DC 2 wooden door if he rolls a 1 on his d12 strength, and the genius can still fail to solve the simple math problem. Personally I"m not a fan of getting rid of modifiers. If you're looking to get rid of extreme results, I think it's better to adjust the die type based on how predictable the task is. So just lifting a rock might be a d4, but using combat skills could be a d12, so as to allow more variance. The thing is that we want somethings to be unpredictable to make them exciting but other activities to be predictable to prevent nonsensical results.
I like this idea but I think it works better for a game where there either are no classes or all characters would be basically the same class if you translated it to dnd terms. Like Panic at the Dojo where everyone is a martial artist
Hey, thanks for the shout out! It was interesting seeing you break down my idea and talk about it!
I think you basically nailed it, but there are a few things I might be able to clarify about my ideas, as that was just a brief summary, and perhaps not worded as clearly as possible.
In the video at 2:36, you nailed that the attribute, and by extension the dice, represent a character’s maximum potential for that attribute. A strength attribute score of d8 for example means that 8 is the maximum amount of strength that a character could potentially apply to an action at that time.
The number of dice represent their consistency at a particular type of action. Nailed it again at 3:44. My wording seemed to cause a bit of confusion at 5:42. I used the term "proficiency" to describe this in an attempt to stay close to the parlance of DnD, but you could easily call it skill/experience/training/aptitude etc. When I said “strength based skill check,” I meant a skill check (say Athletics) where strength is the relevant attribute for the roll.
In my system you don’t gain proficiency for an attribute (like strength), you would gain it toward particular skills (like Athletics), just like in DnD. The difference of course is that instead of that proficiency adding a static modifier, it’s increasing the number of dice you roll for those checks, and in doing so, improving the reliability of the results. So a character attempting an Athletics check would roll a number of dice corresponding to 1 + their level of proficiency with Athletics, and the type of dice would be determined by the character's strength score (say 3d10 for a character with a 10 in Strength, and two points of proficiency in Athletics).
As for the issue of gaining proficiency without increasing the relevant attribute, honestly I haven’t nailed down the progression rules for my system yet, but that’ll be an interesting question to consider once I get there. I plan on allowing both attributes and “proficiency” to be increased, but again, not sure exactly how.
The increasingly swingy nature of the dice as your attributes increase is a natural byproduct of characters having a broader potential range. If the floor is always the same (which I think it should be, because everyone can mess up), having a higher ceiling means having a greater range. Rolling with more dice (which represents having more skill/experience/proficiency at a particular task) increases your odds of doing well and gives more consistency of results. Rolling a single die would only really occur if a character who has no significant skill/experience/training in a task attempts it (say someone who has no experience pickpocketing attempts to steal from someone), or they are facing penalties that would decrease their chances of success, effectively cancelling out the bonuses afforded by their “proficiency.” Even though larger dice are more swingy, they're still a meaningful advancement above smaller dice, both in maximum and average rolls.
It’s interesting that you mention ideal circumstances at 2:52, and talk about it more starting at 4:14. I didn’t talk about it in the original post, but my system also includes bonuses and penalties. The default state (no bonuses or penalties) would be to assume a certain amount of stress. This is so you don’t have to constantly apply penalties in combat, for example. Attempting an action in non-stressful or advantageous circumstances could grant a bonus, whereas extraordinarily stressful or disadvantageous circumstances could warrant penalties. Typically a bonus or penalty would be adding or removing dice (increasing/decreasing your chance of performing to the peak of your capabilities). Penalties could never cause you to have no dice, instead causing your last remaining die to downgrade.
More rarely, a bonus/penalty could cause you to upgrade/downgrade all the dice you roll, but this would only be in circumstances where the maximum potential of a character has been affected (extreme fatigue or an illness/poison weakening a character could downgrade their strength dice, for example).
And for anyone interested in nerding out on probability math, the way I calculate probability for this system is ((d^n - f^n)/d^n)*100, where d = the highest value of the dice you're rolling, n = the number of dice you're rolling, and f = the highest failing value (so the DC -1 if ties count as successes). I think there's a more elegant form of this equation, but this is how I worked it out originally and remains the most intuitive for me. Basically d^n represents the total number of possible unique rolls for that number/type of dice, and f^n represents the number of rolls which result in failure. Subtracting the number of failing rolls from the total number of rolls (d^n - f^n) gives you the number of possible successful rolls. Divide that by the total number of possible rolls and multiply by 100 to get a percentage probability for hitting a particular DC with a given type and number of dice.
So if you're rolling 3d6 with a DC of 4 (where ties succeed), it would be ((6^3 - 3^3)/6^3)*100 or ((216 - 27)/216)*100, or 87.5%. Comparing that to 1d6 with the same DC: ((6 - 3)/6)*100 or 50% and you can see how much adding dice improves your chances of rolling well. If the DC is 6, your chances with 3d6 are 42%, whereas with 1d6 they're only 16.6%.
Of course I wouldn't expect players/DM's to do that math at the table! I'd include some easy to read charts showing the percentages for given DCs with different types/numbers of dice. I don't think it'd take long to develop an intuitive sense of appropriate DCs for given situations.
Anyway thanks again for taking a look at my idea. It was interesting and informative. Looking forward to reading the comments on this one!
You are very welcome. Thank you for the additional information! There is a lot more going on here that I am sure people will be interested in. I am going to pin this post to the top of the comments so people will be more likely too see it and continue the conversation.
@@EHeathRobinson Great! The discussion around these series of videos has already been awesome. Looking forward to more of it!
Reminds me of Kids on Bikes. They do attributes as dice pretty well. Six attributes, one for every die size. Dice can explode. Every failure grants an Adversity Token that can be used to buff rolls at 1:1. Players can also take half of their attribute die to pass tests, as long as they're not under pressure or having to make a split decision.
There's also Kids on Brooms and Teens in Space. Brennan Lee Mulligan even made a noir reskin for their Mentopolis series.
This was a great, detailed discussion. I like how it prevents the wizard from moving the rock, or the barbarian translating the ancient scroll.
Savage Worlds, and Cortex Prime do this too. If you are looking at using Die to represent how capable a character is, you need to research those systems.
Another way to avoid the Wizard Barbarian stone problem is to lower the DC score for moving the stone for the Barbarian. It makes sense for the DC to be lower for a Barbarian than it would be for a Wizard in a case like that
I was thinking a lot about how this could easily move in a Coretex Prime direction.
I am sure there will be people who would argue that the DC of the task should change based on who comes to pick it up. But, I am sure there is a system where that makes sense as well.
@@EHeathRobinson
I have seen it when playing in D&D groups, and I like the idea. Some task would be easier or harder for different characters. It makes sense for locks to be easier to pick by rogues, for example, and it makes more sense that a Barbarian would have more lifting power than a mage. At the very least, it should be an optional house rule.
A system like D&D is in depth enough to where you really don't need to change the difficulty level, because the stats reflect on that pretty well, for the most part. However, Cortex Prime isn't quite as in depth, because you use Dice to represent your "stats." So, if you want to really show that the Barbarian is physically stronger, you have to change the challenge ratings.
@@mr7oclock346 This is an interesting idea, but I feel like it's better handled by attribute and skill modifiers. The Barbarian's superior strength would indeed make lifting the rock easier, which is why they've got a +8 toward their attempt. I haven't played Cortex Prime yet (though I really should since I backed it on kickstarter), but if players or GMs feel the need to modify the DC for tasks on a per-character basis, I think that indicates a failure of the rule system to properly reflect the character's skills/advantages.
I think it'd be better in the long run to adjust the modifiers for each character rather than requiring the DM to adjust the DC per character for each task. It also just makes more logical sense to me. The rock isn't lighter when the Barbarian tries to lift it (DC is static), they just bring more physical power to the attempt (higher modifier), making it easier for them to lift. To me a DC is like an objective measure of the difficulty of a task, with some characters being more capable of meeting that task (as reflected somehow in the mechanics of the character).
A solution to the leveling side of this system could be, training with a professional or reading a book on how to do something, as well as upgrading equipment could increase proficiency while actually exercising that ability or leveling up can change the attribute and increase the size of the dice.
A note on how you are looking at proficiency. Think about it as the ability to leverage your maximum. So a wizard who has a low score (d4) but a high proficiency understands how weak they are, but knows perhaps how to properly lift with their legs, get a proper grip and leverage. A barbarian with low proficiency, would just walk up and try to yet the bolder. The training isn't about increasing the die, but about increasing the character's utilization of the die. Also, looking at doing some kind of break down on these data points, as I was tinkering with a game system with a friend and I am not a fan of the chance system we currently have.
I agree that is how I would interpret it, especially in terms of strength. If you are using the classic D&D main abilities, there may be something equivalent for all of them. I can see "education" been proficiency in intelligence. Education helps you make the most of what you've got. Proficiency in Wisdom and Constitution might be harder. Or, it might be time to move to a new set of attributes.
Yeah, I think my poor wording in that comment lead to some confusion. Cleared it up (hopefully!) in my comment on this video, but the tl:dr version is when I was talking about a "strength based skill check" I was referring to something like the Athletics skill in DnD, and the proficiency would be for the skill (Athletics) not the attribute (Strength).
Still, it lead to some interesting points in the conversation.
I like how you describe it as your ability to leverage your maximum. That's exactly how I think of proficiency. It's training/aptitude/experience in a particular task that makes you more likely to perform it to the best of your physical or mental capability.
First video in a long time that actual talks about a new dice system! Thank you. Been looking for that inspiration for my own ttrpg system. Brewing up something fancy.. but ways to go still.
Excellent! I’m glad you enjoyed it
i think that this is by far my preferred method of representing PC ability. As in the real world few people are able to fully utilize their skills in stressful situations. By representing attributes as the upward potential of a character you can then using something like separate feats or skill granting bonuses to narrow the random element and show the characters ability to operate under pressure.
And i think it holds an added benefit of being a functional check on the feeling of verisimilitude in a game. By forcing dice roles to conform to an expected range of narrative believability for a given character in specific scenes.
Though i think it would be wise when not in stressful situations to just let players use either their max possible roll or the average of their ability dice plus modifiers without having to roll. As rolling is situations like this where there are no outside stressors or interference would break what i see as the implied logic of this type of system.
I agree, the biggest benefit of this type of system is the believability/verisimilitude. Keeping character's capabilities within fixed bounds per attribute helps eliminate scenarios that would destroy the suspension of disbelief. Although technically DnD has an expected range of outcomes (1 to 20 + mod). But there's so much randomness in the system, due to the imbalance between static modifier and d20, that the DCs have to be low enough that properly skilled/spec'd characters can still reliably hit them, and the result is that the DCs are low enough for unskilled/poorly spec'd characters can hit them too frequently on the virtue of a high die roll.
I like the idea of having a static option for situations of low stakes/pressure instead of rolling. For my system I might use the average of their attribute die, plus their levels of proficiency in the chosen action. Having a level of reliability in those situations can help avoid a bad roll breaking the flow of narrative, and keep the game moving more quickly. It's a good idea.
This sounds like my own system. It's based around Fallout, but I'm trying to expend it in a more universal system. Your stats are between 1 and 10 with your dice being d4-1 to d12+4, odd to even increase the flat bonus, even to odd increase dice ranking.
Full chart:
10: d12+4
9: d12+3
8: d10+3
7: d10+2
6: d8+2
5: d8+1
4: d6+1
3: d6+0
2: d4+0
1: d4-1
It sounds like you started with a cool idea, but it sounds like there's an unnecessary amount of detail in determining what to roll. It might be ok.
@@stevenfletcher3389 Oh there's a lot of details in this game, but I don't think the "Talent Dice" system is one of them. It straight forward. Whenever you need a make a Talent Check just grab the right dice and roll.
"Roll XdY and pick the highest" is how i run my extemely homebrewed cairn campaigns. So intuitive, still allows for luck to be a factor while allowing people to be good at what thehre good at, and pairs wonderfully with a system that allows for "levels of success"
Started watching a few of these videos (those about using the d20 vs. 2d10) and while I was watching them I was thinking of this other solution of using multiple dice, and what a surprise in seeing that people had already suggested it! But then again, with this many people watching these videos, it was kind of inevitable.
So, yeah, I like it. However... If you're using multiple types of dice, you will need a ton of dice in total. If you're going from d4s up to d12s (using the standard D&D dice and no d5s or d7s) you will need, what, at least 25 dice? Sure, people could roll fewer dice more times, but that isn't really ideal, is it? Unless you're using a digital dice roller of some kind (which even Google has one).
The system I am developing uses dice (d4 to d12) for stats. Dice explode, but a roll of 1 at any point (even on an explosion) fails. 4 is a success, 8 is 2 successes, 12 is 3 successes (etc)
Sounds like the dice as statistics are popular around here!
Man years ago I was working on a system, 1000, 2000, 3000 (time periods), and proficiency dice were d10, d20, and d30, with stat modifier dice being d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and you roll both together and add. This reminds me of that.
Sounds relatively similar to the 7D System by the dmginfo.
Cool, gonna check out that system to see how it compares to what I'm going for. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
I am a little late to the party here, but I have a game that I wrote up. It uses only a d20. 3 attributes, 3 skills instead of classes. Essentially everything is rolled on 1 table. It works really well.
It is inspired by Tunnel Goons, Knave, and Cairn
Do you have a website for your game?
@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 no I don't, but I can send you a pdf
I had one system, a dice-based one, where you had a small number of d6s assigned to your attributes, and d8s distributed to skills, then a small number of d10s for a luck pool, for pushing yourself, and when you want to make a roll, you take the d6(s) of the ability and the d8(s) of the skill, and any d10s if you have one to spare, roll, and each 6+ is a success, each 1 is a fail, makes skill trump base ability, usually, but there's still luck.
for attacks, more successes than fails and beating the threshold means you hit, and extras bump damage, like a scaling critical.
and racial ability bonuses are a once per round +1 to skills using that score, which could bump a 5 to a success, or bump a 1 off a fail.
the whole thing is like 2 pages, so it's not a lot to learn, but my group is doing PF2e now, so we have a while before I can playtest it.
The more dice in your dice pool, the stronger the average numerical curve you will create. It makes lower and higher numbers increasingly harder to ever achieve the "more dice" you keep adding into the pool. Your trade off is ease of use (visually seeing a number of dice to roll) for gaining a much stronger curve. You can't get something for nothing is the key lesson with dice pools. In other words, with say a 10d10 dice pool as an example, you will be hovering very close to a score of 50 in almost every roll. Dice pools just reinforce a stronger average.
Very true.
I'm creating a system where the higher the skill the smaller the die. Grandmasters roll a d4 and novices a d20. I also use a lot of the unusual dice in between. Roll 1 die, the difference effects the outcome.
I do not like most systems that do dice stepping. The result of a lot of practice is that your skill ceiling goes up but it especially means consistency, not more swingyness. I do like the idea of adding more dice and picking the best .. that could fix the probability problem but it creates fiction problem for me.. how are you training so that the skill ceiling doesn't go up too..
A friend of mine already has a system like this, it works well. Freeblades is the tabletop version but the roleplay version is Brightsword. Base target number is 4 and the dice run D4 all the way to D30. Skills and Attributes work off the same dice system. The dice also explode, and a 1 is a critical failure.
Characters only have 2, 3, or 4 wounds. The system works that first the monster or character must be hit and they have a defense number. So in melee I would roll my d10, if that was my skill, and overcome a defense of 5. Then I may roll my damage dice... a sword may be a d8. I then must overcome the armor value of 4 for the monster to do one wound. Since dice explode if I overcome the armor by 10, I then would cause extra wounds. So a roll of 24 on the damage die is technically 3 wounds in the example above. There are talents and skills like Parry, or Diehard that shift the numbers needed and let the characters protect themselves as well.
Sounds interesting, I'll have to check that out!
Gaining proficiency might well be accomplished by improving technique and taking the max of multiple dice represents that nicely. For instance, I've been doing Pilates for the last few years. I don't think my overall strength has gone up notably, but what I can do I do a lot more reliably and with less strain. Before I took Pilates I might have been rolling a D6, say, and now I'm rolling max(D6,D6). If I did a bunch of strength training I might boost my die to D8 and thus be taking max(D8,D8), which is both more reliable and higher.
I like this system. I've been toying with a system like this for years.
My similar system, not final yet, I've been replacing ability modifiers with dice. 1 through 6 are replaced with d4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20.
Roll a d10, ability die, and weapon die of in combat. So a total of 3 dice.
In combat tried to keep it simply. Total of dice minus armor class.
Still a work in progress. Trying to eliminate all math. And make it a total dice system.
Have tried this d# as ability scores. I find with str checks, rolling in any system is unrealistic. Instead, GM sets a target number for the required strength. That's how heavy something is. If the PC strong enough you can lift it, if not, maybe two of you can lift it with combined str.
The stepped dice system you're describing is essentially a slightly different take on Advantage in D&D: roll N dice, take the highest result. This skews results towards the high end, and the more dice you're rolling, the higher the skew.
I'm not a huge fan of single D20 rolls because of their swinginess, for the reasons outlined in the video. Your low-strength mage has a substantial chance of outperforming your high-strength barbarian at random intervals, and that doesn't feel like it fits the character archetypes at all. It makes it really hard for the players to feel that their characters are the people they're supposed to be. I think stepped dice for different levels of skill or native attributes combined with a pick-the-highest die pool approach goes a long way towards ameliorating this.
It does have ramifications for the design of the game's target number space, though. If everybody rolls a single die of the same size, all target numbers are reachable for all characters (leaving aside the effects of flat modifiers for the moment). With stepped dice, every die size has access to a different T-space, and some target numbers are simply forever unreachable for certain characters (again, flat modifiers aside). Using multiple dice and taking the highest doesn't chance the T-space window that the character can access, it just makes higher numbers in the die's range more likely.
Both skew and flat modifiers have their roles to play; they do very different things and they are both useful in their own areas of applicability. The trick is to come up with a system that balances the two of them and the target number space to come up with something that produces the gameplay feel that the game designer is aiming for. And that's easier said than done. I think you need to decide up front exactly what ability scores represent and what exactly skill levels represent in your system before you get down to the nuts and bolts of matching die roll mechanics to them. I will say that advantage/skew mechanics represent real-world learning curves a lot better than piling on flat modifiers does, if that sort of modelling is your thing. But if you use that for your primary gauge of skill, you have to take into account that your reachable target number space doesn't change unless the die size also does, and if that's too restrictive, it's time to start thinking about adding some flat modifiers to open the higher target number space up. Maybe flat mods for circumstances? The latter flips the 5e paradigm on its head.
I think there's still a lot of unexplored territory here, and I love all the different variations that indie game designers are trying out these days.
So you guys just discovered Savage Worlds, and Mutant Year Zero system. That's cute. Maybe just scrap D&D, and just play a MUCH BETTER game like Savage Worlds, or ANY Free League game system. They are FAR SUPERIOR in virtually EVERY way possible!
We have talked a lot about the Free League games and Savage Worlds. There are a lot of things to really like about them.
Sort of.
Basically assuming you don't use exploding dice, this ensures that only gifted people can succeed at difficult tasks. Only strong people can lift the boulder, and only smart people can solve the puzzle.
However, it still allows for blunders by these people. Hulk can still fail to smash the DC 2 wooden door if he rolls a 1 on his d12 strength, and the genius can still fail to solve the simple math problem.
Personally I"m not a fan of getting rid of modifiers. If you're looking to get rid of extreme results, I think it's better to adjust the die type based on how predictable the task is. So just lifting a rock might be a d4, but using combat skills could be a d12, so as to allow more variance. The thing is that we want somethings to be unpredictable to make them exciting but other activities to be predictable to prevent nonsensical results.
Using dice as score seem to get closer to WoD then DnD if id have to be honest.
Savage world & dragon strike did this in the 80s o0s era
I like this idea but I think it works better for a game where there either are no classes or all characters would be basically the same class if you translated it to dnd terms. Like Panic at the Dojo where everyone is a martial artist
There is no "proficiency in strength", there's proficiency in strength-based things, like weapons that use strength, or athletics