Reducing D20 Rolls and streaks of horrible/super-great luck [Archive] - Wizards Community

Reducing D20 Rolls and streaks of horrible/super-great luck [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Drachasor
05-28-06, 09:05 PM In a game session last night, my character and the other melee character both rolled horrible for 5 rounds in a row (no hits). Meanwhile the enemy rolled well (nat 16+ constantly against me for instance). Luckily we managed to reach the near unheard of occurance of everyone getting knocked unconcious and no one died. Still, it seemed to me that there must be a better way.

I thought about it a little and here is what I came up with:

Everyone has the numbers 1-20 written out on a table as follows:

A: 1 2 3 4 5
B: 6 7 8 9 10
C: 11 12 13 14 15
D: 16 17 18 19 20

In combat when a d20 roll is needed to hit (or save), the player chooses a number from this list and uses that instead of a roll. He has to divide his choices between each row though; meaning that he can't take n+1 numbers from any one row before he has taken at least n numbers from the other rows.

Ex: A player has already used his 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20. So he has used two numbers from rows A-C and 3 numbers from row D. He attacks a goblin, now he must choose a number. He cannot pick from row D since he hasn't yet picked 3 numbers from all the other rows, so he has to pick a number from row A-C. If he picks 14, then the next time he needs a number he'd have to pick from row A or B (since they have had 2 numbers taken from them and rows C and D have had 3). Once he has picked 3 numbers and only 3 numbers from each row he could then choose a number from any row (assuming he hadn't used it yet. When he had used all 20 numbers he would move to a new table.

This puts the power to stave off bad luck in the hands of the players, letting them make choices about when they want their character to do well and when they want their character to do poorly. In combat the chance of this being abused is relatively small, since spending bad numbers on pointless tasts would require risking attacks from the enemy.

Of course with skills it is a bit harder to balance this. You could let the DM decide when a player can use a "list number" instead of rolling a D20. Or you could say that you can only use a list number on a challange that provides experience if done successfully (or carries some penalty of risk). Even that is a bit abuseable though.

Anyhow, what do people think of this? Has anyone proposed it before?
X-Codes
05-28-06, 10:25 PM Action Points. Thats where it's at.

If I want the players to have more control over their own fate, I put the Action Point system into the game.

I think the chart takes some of the fun out of the game because of the lack of uncertainty.
Drachasor
05-28-06, 11:08 PM Action Points. Thats where it's at.

If I want the players to have more control over their own fate, I put the Action Point system into the game.

I think the chart takes some of the fun out of the game because of the lack of uncertainty.

Action points are pretty small in effect. They wouldn't have made any change in what happened the other night, for example. I did not break a 5 on my d20 rolls for an entire combat. So sure, while a string of good luck can be fun, I don't think a string of bad luck is fun at all. As such, "uncertainty" is a very double-edged sword and takes away fun at least as much as it adds anything fun to the game.

I made the above system, as a starting idea, because it helps emphasize to the players that their decisions matter. That is a concept with a lot more fun in it than randomness. When things are random, it might not matter at all what you, the player, decide to do. When you are making decisions though, you can decide when you want that big hit or critical, but the above system makes sure there is not complete free reign.

Also, there are still degrees of uncertainty. The ACs of the enemy are not known the the players. Nor wether the enemy is fighting defensively, using combat expertise, or some other effect that makes his AC higher one round than it is in another. Additionally, since the player wouldn't have complete freedom with picking his numbers, it is certainly true that he couldn't quickly pinpoint the precise AC of an enemy opponent. Such a system is naturally going to have a PC trying to get near-hits with numbers that are close to hitting but not perfect. This is a much more fun type of uncertainty, imho.

Honestly the biggest potential problem I see are critical hits, but I think that might require playtesting to determine if it actually is a problem.

-Drachasor

PS. Of course this system doesn't get rid of all randomness such as rolling for damage.
jagggar
05-29-06, 10:36 AM I'm not sure I'd be okay with being forced to take a low 'roll' (row A). Sure, rolling low numbers sucks, but then I can be mad at my dice because they hate me. The DM forcing me to 'roll' low just so I don't do it all the time? I'll probably be less than happy for a quarter of the time (the row A quarter).

Maybe give players the option of choosing a roll from their list rather than forcing them to use it. (If you're rolling great, stick with the rolls. If your dice hate you take the table.)

I'd also get rid of 1 and 20 and say that critical hits must be rolled so choosing a number from the table doesn't threaten.
I'd make the table look as followed so you aren't forced to get a crappy roll every 4th action, but if you go for great 'rolls' from the table you'll end up with a series of crappy 'rolls'.
A: 2 7 8 13 14 19
B: 3 6 9 12 15 18
C: 4 5 10 11 16 17

Card Based Combat? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=637387) might have some ideas that interst you. Using a deck of cards to play instead of rolling a die.
Max Octavious Xavier
05-29-06, 11:32 AM ...I have some questions. (Both Drachasor and jagggarjagggar)
- How often/under what conditions do you "reset" the table?
- How would you handle players trying to use inconsequential actions to use up the low rolls, leaving the high rolls for the important stuff?
- How long do combats last and will the players even have to get to the lower numbers?

jagggar, so I could pick the numbers in the following order: 19,18,17,16,15,14.... 3,2 ; is this a correct interpretation of your idea.

The basic idea is interesting and I seem to recall another thread that had a similar idea/mechanic. I just wish I could find it.
edit: maybe it was the card based idea I was thinking off.
jagggar
05-29-06, 02:10 PM - How often/under what conditions do you "reset" the table?
When he had used all 20 numbers he would move to a new table. And I was assuming the same.

- How would you handle players trying to use inconsequential actions to use up the low rolls, leaving the high rolls for the important stuff?Of course with skills it is a bit harder to balance this. You could let the DM decide when a player can use a "list number" instead of rolling a D20. Or you could say that you can only use a list number on a challange that provides experience if done successfully (or carries some penalty of risk). Even that is a bit abuseable though.And again, the same.

- How long do combats last and will the players even have to get to the lower numbers?Well, it doesn't matter how long combat lasts if you only change sheets when you run out of numbers.

jagggar, so I could pick the numbers in the following order: 19,18,17,16,15,14.... 3,2 ; is this a correct interpretation of your idea. Yeah, but you'd end up screwing yourself if you used all your best numbers against kobolds and went up against the BBEG with only 7-2 remaining. It's one of the reasons I said using a number from the table didn't threaten a critical. And also why I think it should be used at the player's option to rolling a d20.

While offering everyone the best numbers at every row can probably be abusable, it won't force a character to fail a saving throw or some other critical roll because the A row needs to catch up to the rest. If a player is wise, they'll keep a few of the high rolls in reserves for critical saving throws and such. If a player isn't wise, they end up being the one to force their own failure and can't be mad at the DM (well, for making them fail. they can be mad at the DM for using the attack/spell/whatever).
Drachasor
05-30-06, 12:12 AM Hmm, good point Jagger, I think the row thing can be gotten rid of and just letting someone deal with the whole spectrum can work.

However, I think you can to make a total switch for combat or not do it at all. If you let them use a number only if they want then they will use only the good numbers and then roll the rest of the time, I think.

-Drachasor
jagggar
05-30-06, 11:05 AM I know. . . That's the problem with trying to apply a pick'n'choose strategy bent resolution method in a game like D&D.

Playing a game like Monoploy with a sheet of rolls to choose from works because sometimes you want those low rolls and it doesn't hurt that you get multiple rolls with the same total (1+6=7,2+5=7,...,6+1=7).

But with the d20 system: high is always good, low is always bad. (Well, unless it's the DM rolling low, then he can miss all those monster attacks all day long! :P ) The most strategy you could do would be something like with your fighter, using just a high enough roll to hit him with your first attack, then just high enough to hit him with your second and third and so on.
Thelon Fairblade
05-30-06, 02:17 PM According to the way I read the OP, you couldn't go 19,18,17, etc. You'd have to go 19, 14, 9, since you must take the lower rows before picking that same row again.

Now, though the barbarian and the fighter can wail on the kobolds, using up those 3s, 4s, and 5s, then the BBEG appears and they go full into Power Attack and pick the 20 and 19 for the mega-crit. Gee, that was hard.

"oh, I ned to buy some time.... Combat Expertise for 5, and Fight Defensively, and I'll pick a '2'... Oh look, I missed the AC20 hill giant, what a suprise. +8 AC this round!"

A couple flaws I see.

On the other hand, I (as GM) have used a related idea for skill checks before. For one skill- and story-intensive game, I had each player roll 10 "d20s" when they arrived, write the results down, and give them to me. As the story progressed along, *I* picked rolls off their lists in order to move the story along and conceal evidence. The players had an idea of how their character was going to perform that evening (oh man, I didn't roll higher than a 10!), but they could still be successful or still fail if using their best/worst skills.

For example
Rogue: I check the door for traps! I have a +12.
DM (selects a 13, adds the rogue's skill; no traps exist): You don't find any. You note that the door is locked, though.
Rogue: Door looks clear. I'll unlock it. I'm +14.
DM (DC is 30 for this particular dwarven-craft puzzle lock; DM selects a 17 from the list): The lock is much more difficult thatn you expected from the simple exterior. It takes a great deal of effort and quite a bit of time, but you finally pull it off! The lock clicks open.

Example
Fighter: I want to sneak up on the guard and steal his pants!
DM (selects a 3 from the list): The guard hears you coming a mile away. You get the feeling he'll be watching you for the rest of the night.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drachasor 05-28-06, 09:05 PM	In a game session last night, my character and the other melee character both rolled horrible for 5 rounds in a row (no hits). Meanwhile the enemy rolled well (nat 16+ constantly against me for instance). Luckily we managed to reach the near unheard of occurance of everyone getting knocked unconcious and no one died. Still, it seemed to me that there must be a better way. I thought about it a little and here is what I came up with: Everyone has the numbers 1-20 written out on a table as follows: A: 1 2 3 4 5 B: 6 7 8 9 10 C: 11 12 13 14 15 D: 16 17 18 19 20 In combat when a d20 roll is needed to hit (or save), the player chooses a number from this list and uses that instead of a roll. He has to divide his choices between each row though; meaning that he can't take n+1 numbers from any one row before he has taken at least n numbers from the other rows. Ex: A player has already used his 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20. So he has used two numbers from rows A-C and 3 numbers from row D. He attacks a goblin, now he must choose a number. He cannot pick from row D since he hasn't yet picked 3 numbers from all the other rows, so he has to pick a number from row A-C. If he picks 14, then the next time he needs a number he'd have to pick from row A or B (since they have had 2 numbers taken from them and rows C and D have had 3). Once he has picked 3 numbers and only 3 numbers from each row he could then choose a number from any row (assuming he hadn't used it yet. When he had used all 20 numbers he would move to a new table. This puts the power to stave off bad luck in the hands of the players, letting them make choices about when they want their character to do well and when they want their character to do poorly. In combat the chance of this being abused is relatively small, since spending bad numbers on pointless tasts would require risking attacks from the enemy. Of course with skills it is a bit harder to balance this. You could let the DM decide when a player can use a "list number" instead of rolling a D20. Or you could say that you can only use a list number on a challange that provides experience if done successfully (or carries some penalty of risk). Even that is a bit abuseable though. Anyhow, what do people think of this? Has anyone proposed it before?
X-Codes 05-28-06, 10:25 PM	Action Points. Thats where it's at. If I want the players to have more control over their own fate, I put the Action Point system into the game. I think the chart takes some of the fun out of the game because of the lack of uncertainty.
Drachasor 05-28-06, 11:08 PM	Action Points. Thats where it's at. If I want the players to have more control over their own fate, I put the Action Point system into the game. I think the chart takes some of the fun out of the game because of the lack of uncertainty. Action points are pretty small in effect. They wouldn't have made any change in what happened the other night, for example. I did not break a 5 on my d20 rolls for an entire combat. So sure, while a string of good luck can be fun, I don't think a string of bad luck is fun at all. As such, "uncertainty" is a very double-edged sword and takes away fun at least as much as it adds anything fun to the game. I made the above system, as a starting idea, because it helps emphasize to the players that their decisions matter. That is a concept with a lot more fun in it than randomness. When things are random, it might not matter at all what you, the player, decide to do. When you are making decisions though, you can decide when you want that big hit or critical, but the above system makes sure there is not complete free reign. Also, there are still degrees of uncertainty. The ACs of the enemy are not known the the players. Nor wether the enemy is fighting defensively, using combat expertise, or some other effect that makes his AC higher one round than it is in another. Additionally, since the player wouldn't have complete freedom with picking his numbers, it is certainly true that he couldn't quickly pinpoint the precise AC of an enemy opponent. Such a system is naturally going to have a PC trying to get near-hits with numbers that are close to hitting but not perfect. This is a much more fun type of uncertainty, imho. Honestly the biggest potential problem I see are critical hits, but I think that might require playtesting to determine if it actually is a problem. -Drachasor PS. Of course this system doesn't get rid of all randomness such as rolling for damage.
jagggar 05-29-06, 10:36 AM	I'm not sure I'd be okay with being forced to take a low 'roll' (row A). Sure, rolling low numbers sucks, but then I can be mad at my dice because they hate me. The DM forcing me to 'roll' low just so I don't do it all the time? I'll probably be less than happy for a quarter of the time (the row A quarter). Maybe give players the option of choosing a roll from their list rather than forcing them to use it. (If you're rolling great, stick with the rolls. If your dice hate you take the table.) I'd also get rid of 1 and 20 and say that critical hits must be rolled so choosing a number from the table doesn't threaten. I'd make the table look as followed so you aren't forced to get a crappy roll every 4th action, but if you go for great 'rolls' from the table you'll end up with a series of crappy 'rolls'. A: 2 7 8 13 14 19 B: 3 6 9 12 15 18 C: 4 5 10 11 16 17 Card Based Combat? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=637387) might have some ideas that interst you. Using a deck of cards to play instead of rolling a die.
Max Octavious Xavier 05-29-06, 11:32 AM	...I have some questions. (Both Drachasor and jagggarjagggar) - How often/under what conditions do you "reset" the table? - How would you handle players trying to use inconsequential actions to use up the low rolls, leaving the high rolls for the important stuff? - How long do combats last and will the players even have to get to the lower numbers? jagggar, so I could pick the numbers in the following order: 19,18,17,16,15,14.... 3,2 ; is this a correct interpretation of your idea. The basic idea is interesting and I seem to recall another thread that had a similar idea/mechanic. I just wish I could find it. edit: maybe it was the card based idea I was thinking off.
jagggar 05-29-06, 02:10 PM	- How often/under what conditions do you "reset" the table? When he had used all 20 numbers he would move to a new table. And I was assuming the same. - How would you handle players trying to use inconsequential actions to use up the low rolls, leaving the high rolls for the important stuff?Of course with skills it is a bit harder to balance this. You could let the DM decide when a player can use a "list number" instead of rolling a D20. Or you could say that you can only use a list number on a challange that provides experience if done successfully (or carries some penalty of risk). Even that is a bit abuseable though.And again, the same. - How long do combats last and will the players even have to get to the lower numbers?Well, it doesn't matter how long combat lasts if you only change sheets when you run out of numbers. jagggar, so I could pick the numbers in the following order: 19,18,17,16,15,14.... 3,2 ; is this a correct interpretation of your idea. Yeah, but you'd end up screwing yourself if you used all your best numbers against kobolds and went up against the BBEG with only 7-2 remaining. It's one of the reasons I said using a number from the table didn't threaten a critical. And also why I think it should be used at the player's option to rolling a d20. While offering everyone the best numbers at every row can probably be abusable, it won't force a character to fail a saving throw or some other critical roll because the A row needs to catch up to the rest. If a player is wise, they'll keep a few of the high rolls in reserves for critical saving throws and such. If a player isn't wise, they end up being the one to force their own failure and can't be mad at the DM (well, for making them fail. they can be mad at the DM for using the attack/spell/whatever).
Drachasor 05-30-06, 12:12 AM	Hmm, good point Jagger, I think the row thing can be gotten rid of and just letting someone deal with the whole spectrum can work. However, I think you can to make a total switch for combat or not do it at all. If you let them use a number only if they want then they will use only the good numbers and then roll the rest of the time, I think. -Drachasor
jagggar 05-30-06, 11:05 AM	I know. . . That's the problem with trying to apply a pick'n'choose strategy bent resolution method in a game like D&D. Playing a game like Monoploy with a sheet of rolls to choose from works because sometimes you want those low rolls and it doesn't hurt that you get multiple rolls with the same total (1+6=7,2+5=7,...,6+1=7). But with the d20 system: high is always good, low is always bad. (Well, unless it's the DM rolling low, then he can miss all those monster attacks all day long! :P ) The most strategy you could do would be something like with your fighter, using just a high enough roll to hit him with your first attack, then just high enough to hit him with your second and third and so on.
Thelon Fairblade 05-30-06, 02:17 PM	According to the way I read the OP, you couldn't go 19,18,17, etc. You'd have to go 19, 14, 9, since you must take the lower rows before picking that same row again. Now, though the barbarian and the fighter can wail on the kobolds, using up those 3s, 4s, and 5s, then the BBEG appears and they go full into Power Attack and pick the 20 and 19 for the mega-crit. Gee, that was hard. "oh, I ned to buy some time.... Combat Expertise for 5, and Fight Defensively, and I'll pick a '2'... Oh look, I missed the AC20 hill giant, what a suprise. +8 AC this round!" A couple flaws I see. On the other hand, I (as GM) have used a related idea for skill checks before. For one skill- and story-intensive game, I had each player roll 10 "d20s" when they arrived, write the results down, and give them to me. As the story progressed along, I picked rolls off their lists in order to move the story along and conceal evidence. The players had an idea of how their character was going to perform that evening (oh man, I didn't roll higher than a 10!), but they could still be successful or still fail if using their best/worst skills. For example Rogue: I check the door for traps! I have a +12. DM (selects a 13, adds the rogue's skill; no traps exist): You don't find any. You note that the door is locked, though. Rogue: Door looks clear. I'll unlock it. I'm +14. DM (DC is 30 for this particular dwarven-craft puzzle lock; DM selects a 17 from the list): The lock is much more difficult thatn you expected from the simple exterior. It takes a great deal of effort and quite a bit of time, but you finally pull it off! The lock clicks open. Example Fighter: I want to sneak up on the guard and steal his pants! DM (selects a 3 from the list): The guard hears you coming a mile away. You get the feeling he'll be watching you for the rest of the night.