PDA

View Full Version : WoD w/ d6s?

Maat Mons
2018-07-10, 06:24 PM
Has anyone ever done a variant of White Wolf's role playing systems with six-sided dice? Back when I played, they still had the number required for a success vary from one roll to another. But now, if I remember what I read correctly, it's 8 or higher for success, no matter what. That's a 30% chance of success, which is reasonably similar to the odds of rolling a 5 or better on six-sided dice (a little over 33.3%). Odds of success go up, but they go up for players and enemies alike, so I figure it could be accounted for?

Odds of rolling a 1 go up too though, which might be a problem. Actually, has anyone experimented with removing botches from the system? Or are they pretty essential?

Then again botches and success cancel each other out. So if the odds of a success go up by ~3.3%, and the odds of a botch go up by ~0.6%, that's a net increase in the chances of success? At least, it seems like it would be when you're rolling a lot of dice. If you're rolling very few (like 1), things become more risk.

Now, in another thread here, a game system is being discussed that tracks all health with 1d6 per creature. I thought it was a neat idea. Could World of Darkness games be adapted to use the same method? The games have 7 health levels, if you count Incapacitated, and don't count Dead. Maybe use the numbers 1-6 to represent the non-Incapacitated health levels, tip the figure over for Incapacitated, and remove the figure for Dead?

I know my group didn't use a tactical map or minitures. Do a reasonable number of groups incorporate those things? There are rules for it right? Or at least someone's homebrewed some up?

Composer99
2018-07-10, 08:31 PM
I'm not familiar with WoD games, but if a botch requires a roll of 1 on a die, it's actually increasing from 10% to 16 2/3%. That might be tipping too far in favour of botching, although perhaps not: it depends on the likely consequences, I would imagine.

Gorum
2018-07-10, 09:13 PM
In NWoD, 1's aren't "botches" unless a character has a specific weaknesses (Like Nosfetau Vampires trying to seduce). Critical failure only happen when "chance rolls" happen, which are rolls with "less than one die", which happens when difficulty stacks (Fire a gun underwater, at an armored target, in the dark, while supernaturally terrified and a -2 penalty from your own wounds.) or when an extended roll keeps failing.

They always happen out of desperate or reckless actions.

Using d6 vs d10 is therefore a very slight modification to the game. Have successes on 5-6 and you're hitting similar odds (3% difference per die is negligible). If you have a ton of d6 lying around from Shadowrun or Warhammer 40k, feel free playing NWoD with d6 instead.

I mean, the game's intrinsic flaws, at least in the first version of NWoD stuff, has nothing to do with the d10. Some things like Blood Potency being worthless (or even outright detrimental), some power at rank 1 being overpowered while rank 2 powers being useless, the sheer amount of XP to have an elder that is, ultimately, rather fragile for a covenant of 5 fledglings... that sort of things.

Maat Mons
2018-07-10, 09:39 PM
I'm not familiar with WoD games, but if a botch requires a roll of 1 on a die, it's actually increasing from 10% to 16 2/3%.

Oops, decimal places. Right, so ~6.7%, not ~0.7%. A net decrease to successes. Which makes sense, because you go from having 3 numbers that add a success and 2 that subtract a success, to having 2 numbers that add a success and 1 number that subtracts a success.

Okay, so the way it worked back in the day, was you rolled some number of d10s. There was a difficulty for the roll, from 2-10. Any d10 that rolled the difficulty or higher was a success. Any d10 that rolled a 1 was a botch. If your total number of successes was greater than your total number of botches, you succeed. Otherwise you failed. Or, if you didn't roll even a single success, and you rolled at least one botch, you critically failed.

I'd forgotten, but I just checked, and there was also a rule that 10s add a success, and also allow you to roll an additional die (and maybe get another success... even another reroll). So, I guess, since the lowest and highest results are more common on a d6 than on a d10, this rule helps offset the botches.

Let's see if I can math. For a difficulty 8 roll (all rolls, in the newer version), the expected value of successes per die is ~0.22. For my proposed d6 thing, with exploding 6s added, the expected value is ~0.2. So, I guess it actually works out to fewer successes, overall.

Actually, it may not be that I didn't remember. Apparently, some editions didn't have you add and reroll 10s, or only did it under special circumstances.

In NWoD, 1's aren't "botches" unless a character has a specific weaknesses (Like Nosfetau Vampires trying to seduce).

Okay, so, the newer versions dropped the entire thing about 1s canceling out successes, but do have the add and reroll 10s thing?

Which, if I'm mathing correctly, gives an expected value of ~0.33 successes per die in the newest systems. If you ditch the 1s thing from my proposed d6 idea (for parity with the new system), and also ditched the exploding rerolls (because I don't care for them), your expected value of successes per die is.. ~0.33. So that actually works out pretty well.

Gorum
2018-07-10, 10:56 PM
I guess 6 again is far more generous than 10 again... You could limit it to one reroll per die, blocking the possibility of getting 3+ successes per die.

But the dice roll difference is minimal, barely worth this post. Replacing D&D's d20 for 2d10 or even 3d6+1... That would be worth discussing!

(Flat odds vs. Bell Curve distribution)

Knaight
2018-07-11, 01:03 AM
I guess 6 again is far more generous than 10 again... You could limit it to one reroll per die, blocking the possibility of getting 3+ successes per die.

But the dice roll difference is minimal, barely worth this post. Replacing D&D's d20 for 2d10 or even 3d6+1... That would be worth discussing!

(Flat odds vs. Bell Curve distribution)

Or using d6 instead of d10 for the ORE games, which is a modified dice pool about finding matches.

Maat Mons
2018-07-11, 05:36 PM
[Botches] always happen out of desperate or reckless actions.

Oh good. I always like when critical failure rules don't come up very often. Actually, no, scratch that. I always like when critical failure rules are completely absent from a system. But I can meet a system half way, with rules that technically exist, but are never actually used.

If you have a ton of d6 lying around from Shadowrun or Warhammer 40k, feel free playing NWoD with d6 instead.

The thought came about from a discussion of what properties a good first-timer's RPG should have. I suggested an all-d6 system, so you wouldn't have to explain to new players that different types of dice exist, nor the associated terminology. And because six-sided dice can be gotten pretty much anywhere.

I then jumped to considering how WoD mechanics would work with d6s. Because I like WoD mechanics, especially the new ones. I mean, I've never actually used the new ones. But changing difficulty by changing the minimum success number seems like needless complexity, when the system already changes difficulty by adding or subtracting dice from the pool.

I mean, the game's intrinsic flaws, at least in the first version of NWoD stuff, has nothing to do with the d10. Some things like Blood Potency being worthless (or even outright detrimental), some power at rank 1 being overpowered while rank 2 powers being useless, the sheer amount of XP to have an elder that is, ultimately, rather fragile for a covenant of 5 fledglings... that sort of things.

Well, that's a shame. I mean, I definitely remember the version I played having flaws. But I kind of hoped a new version would fix everything. That might have been unrealistic though. At least it sounds like they made improvements... in the base rolling mechanics, if nothing else.

I guess 6 again is far more generous than 10 again...

It would bump expected successes up to 40%, yes. But moreso, I just don't like reroll and add mechanics. The thing I like about dice pools and bell-curve rolls is that they cluster things more around the average. Adding a runaway success scenario kind of serves the opposite purpose.

In fact, I'd not even really a fan of critical hit mechanics, because they also serve to spread out the possibilities more. Though I do like giving bonus damage based on degree of success on the attack roll, which could be seen as a sort of critical-hit type thing, conceptually.

But the dice roll difference is minimal, barely worth this post. Replacing D&D's d20 for 2d10 or even 3d6+1... That would be worth discussing!

Why add +1 to 3d6? I always liked the bellcurve rolls from Unearthed Arcana. 3d6 gives a range of 3-18. That is, all but the lowest two (1 and 2) and the highest (19 and 20) from 1d20. It has a nice symetry. And the average is the same for both, 10.5.

... a modified dice pool about finding matches.

That's simultaneously fascinating and offputting... both for the same reasons.

Gorum
2018-07-12, 02:59 AM
Oh good. I always like when critical failure rules don't come up very often. Actually, no, scratch that. I always like when critical failure rules are completely absent from a system. But I can meet a system half way, with rules that technically exist, but are never actually used.

I like when they only happen because a player chose to take the risks. In this specific case, the risk can't be taken or not. It is not a gambit, except in desperation or sheer stupidity, as chance rolls have 8 chances out of 10 to fail, 1 to disastrously fail, and 1 to succeed.

The thought came about from a discussion of what properties a good first-timer's RPG should have. I suggested an all-d6 system, so you wouldn't have to explain to new players that different types of dice exist, nor the associated terminology. And because six-sided dice can be gotten pretty much anywhere.

I then jumped to considering how WoD mechanics would work with d6s. Because I like WoD mechanics, especially the new ones. I mean, I've never actually used the new ones. But changing difficulty by changing the minimum success number seems like needless complexity, when the system already changes difficulty by adding or subtracting dice from the pool.

Look into Dream Pod 9's silhouette then. It relies on d6, is extremely flexible and easy to learn. [Skill Level]d6 (take highest, +1 per additional 6) + stat.

Well, that's a shame. I mean, I definitely remember the version I played having flaws. But I kind of hoped a new version would fix everything. That might have been unrealistic though. At least it sounds like they made improvements... in the base rolling mechanics, if nothing else.

Well, White Wolf kinda committed sudoku by producing extra content for which there was no demand (How the changelings are organized in Boston? SIGN ME UP!), treating local stores like **** by forcing them to buy said crap books and so on.

I think it is too late to redeem the game BUT I heard the newest edition of NWoD fixed a lot of these issues that made the game... so-so. Look into it, but don't expect your local store to have it in stock nor be willing to get it.

It would bump expected successes up to 40%, yes. But moreso, I just don't like reroll and add mechanics. The thing I like about dice pools and bell-curve rolls is that they cluster things more around the average. Adding a runaway success scenario kind of serves the opposite purpose.

In fact, I'd not even really a fan of critical hit mechanics, because they also serve to spread out the possibilities more. Though I do like giving bonus damage based on degree of success on the attack roll, which could be seen as a sort of critical-hit type thing, conceptually.

I wholly understand. My favorite mechanic is Margins of Success (Dream Pod 9) / Number of Hits (Shadowrun) / Number of successes (WoD). By linking an extremely precise shot with actual lethality, you avoid adding even more chaos and unpredictability in the game without every hit having the same value.

As if a no-bell-curve distribution wasn't random enough, some of those values lead to a reroll that, if successful, doubles the damage output of a character? No thanks. I don't want my encounters trivialized, or a CR 1/3 orc to kill a PC in one lucky swing.

Why add +1 to 3d6? I always liked the bellcurve rolls from Unearthed Arcana. 3d6 gives a range of 3-18. That is, all but the lowest two (1 and 2) and the highest (19 and 20) from 1d20. It has a nice symetry. And the average is the same for both, 10.5.

Long story short, Star Wars Saga (d20). Heavily houseruled (ignore the two first page of lore, in french, the rest is in plain english), it is here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LEewr2mIBMMspdzLUAh9PvMwbl0lDq1k. In addition to these rules, I implemented alternative dice rolls. Safer rolls needed higher average as rewards, while the riskier rolls allowed more chances to crit fail and critical hit.

Players could choose 1d20 (averages 10.5), 2d10 (averages 11) or 3d6+1 (averages 11.5). Needless to say, use of the 2d10 roll was extremely rare. Either players were confident with 3d6 due to tons of modifiers going their way, or they needed 16+ so badly they rolled a d20.