I cannot shake this idea. I am not a big fan of rolling dice. I know some players love to roll fist-fulls of dEverythings, but I've never really felt that the act of rolling was all that dramatic or interesting in itself. And it never made all that much sense to me, given that the traditional d20 is a flat distribution, I never have any idea what I'm going to roll - so I can never rely on my character's performance or predict what I might be able to do except in general terms. And as GM, I cannot f###ing stand 5 turns of nobody able to hit each other!!! Which has happened a lot, more than often enough to be noticeable (heck, 13th Age included a mechanic to increase your odds to hit over time, no doubt because they'd noticed this too). I'm a believer that a novice has wild swings of capability, but an expert has a more consistent output (something I'll talk about in another article).
So what I love about this idea is that it takes the "randomness" away from saying the player had these huge swings of capability (of course, thinking about it, an single die would still be flat, so there would still be some "swinginess") and that the world is unknown until it's interacted with (a Schrodinger's Cat situation). I think it would be great to try making all the PCs skills and abilities static numbers, and the roll is only to determine the challenge in the world. I would like this as a player, because it would give me the feeling that I knew what I was capable of. And it also has the feeling of discovery, of not knowing what the world is like until you try to change it.
Two things he mentions in the video that I thought about. He talks about making a video, that he knows how to make videos - which I think is a perfectly accurate description. So what is the roll for? Audience reaction. The roll says how people in general react to your video (ie, successful means that your video was well-received, failure means that not many people responded positively to it). Also, he talks about climbing a wall, and maybe re-rolling if the same character had to climb it under pressure - well, then just add a die to the result you already found. So say you roll a d20 for the wall's "difficulty" and get a 15, which the player can climb. On the way back the player is being chased by the guards, so add a d6 to the base difficulty (or maybe d10) and see if the player can still climb it.
Okay, so it's an interesting idea in the abstract, how would it actually work though?
Well, heck, let me see if I can knock out something. Since I've been working with the 5th Edition SRD, that's what I'm going to throw out some numbers for. In that system rolls are made up of 4 parts: d20 roll + attribute modifier + proficiency bonus + any other modifiers. The d20 roll can be done 3 ways, a single die, 2 dice take best (which the system equates to +5) and 2 dice take worst (or -5). Attribute modifiers generally run from -1 to +4 for most players, the table absolutely goes from -5 to +10. Proficiency bonuses go from +2 to +6. And it's hard to call other modifiers, they seem to be pretty low (I believe most magic items are up to a +3). Okay, those are the basic numbers used by the system.
The first thing I think of is using the attribute scores instead of the modifiers. The 5e's system is screwy, there is a score, like 14, and a modifier, +2 in that case. You only use the score for perquisites (which really means only feats, which are optional), the modifier is what really gets used regularly. It seems like it would be better to just use the modifier and tie perquisites to it as well (though, in that case there's not much reason to roll dice for the the score, a point-buy or priority system would be better, so it would be a big change from previous editions). Anyways, while the basic system does not use the attribute score very often, for a reverse-roll variant it would come in handy. If the character's ability was Attribute Score + Proficiency (if applicable), you'd be looking at around a 16 for something a beginning character was skilled/ proficient at, going up to 20 as a max at first level (and 10 for somebody unskilled and unexceptional). So what if "beginning difficulty" was d20 + 5, below the player's score a success ? According to AnyDice.com that would be an 25% chance of 10 or less, 55% chance of 16 or less, and 75% chance of 20 or less. That's actually not too bad. You could even keep Advantage and Disadvantage, just now you want a low number so you reverse them: Advantage rolls 2d20 and takes the lowest, Disadvantage 2d20 and takes highest. You wouldn't need to change any numbers at all. Of course, what about combat? Well, maybe instead of the "+5" to the roll, in combat you add the monster's Armor Class to the d20? ACs go from 11 to 18, just drop the 10, so from +1 to +8 with +Dex for lighter armors and +2 for a shield. That should work just fine. Contested checks could be the same way, instead of d20+5 do d20+NPC Attribute Modifier (or Att Mod x 2 maybe)(or, Att Mod + Proficiency if NPC would have it?). If you add a "level" to challenges, you could add +1 to the base roll for every level the challenge was above 1st, though with the narrow math that's tricky. You might want to say it's d20 +3 +Proficiency Mod for Level (which is +2 at 1st level, so that makes the d20+5, and that would then go up as the characters do, or if you want to put in a "super-hard" lock or challenge that would use the next highest Proficiency Modifier). Not sure about how to scale up challenges, the game is designed with some weird math.
Since I don't have a group to playtest this with, I can't really come up with a very good idea of how to play this, but I love the concept. The world is a blank slate, it's revealed when the players interact with it - but the players know exactly what they are capable of (and if the characters fail/ come up short, they know exactly how much they need to make up). I'm not sure that matters to anybody other than me, but that seems like an awesome mechanic.
Random Thought: this came to me later, from another blogger I read long ago (and of course can't remember who). I call it the "Combat Grind" variant, for tables who want more vicious fights. Use the reverse-roll, PC Attribute Score + Proficiency vs d20 + NPC AC(-10), which sets who has the Edge. Since Hit Points are an abstraction of physical wounds, vitality, skill and luck, then one could argue that it should be impossible to fight and not lose HP. After all, at the minimum you have to spend physical effort, swinging your sword, and using up luck to not get wounded. So, for each round of combat, the Edge stays the same (unless someone can come up with some kind of fancy maneuver, like a disarm or trip), instead both sides roll their damage, whomever has the edge adds it to their damage roll. So, two fighters with d8 longswords. PC fighter has 14 Str + 2 for being proficient at level 1, NPC fighter is wearing Chain Mail (AC 16) - so a d20+6 is rolled, getting a 21 total. Okay, that makes me face-palm, in combat I'm totally forgetting about the PCs armor. Okay, let's add the PCs Att score, AC (-10), and Proficiency Bonus (if applicable), against that we'll roll d20 + NPC AC (-10) + NPC Proficiency Bonus (if applicable). So let's say 14 Str +2 Prof + 6 chain mail AC or 22 vs d20 + 6 (we'll give them the same armor) + 2 (and assume both proficient) [the NPCs attribute will be the d20, did you find the really string bandit or the weak one?]. So, that way, let's roll again: and get a 17 this time. Okay, the PCs total is 22, so 17 is 5 points lower, low is a success, so the PC has a 5-point Edge. Now, the fight actually starts, each turn the PC rolls his d8 damage + 5 for the Edge, but he takes the NPCs d8 damage as well (oh, and both add Str mod, if you want to make it meaner - might get a little too lethal though). So each turn the PC is losing HP, he's getting tired, wounded, un-lucky - but since he has the edge he's wearing down the other guy a lot faster. Since characters heal with every rest, the PC can heal himself back up, but he's going to need rest a lot more since every round of every fight he's guaranteed to get hurt. Hence my calling it the "Combat Grind." It might be something to try to those GMs and PCs who think 5th Ed.s combat is too easy (since healing is much more plentiful than previous editions); or for those tables that just want combat to feel scary. It also might be a total mess, I don't know :) The idea came to me so I figured while I was throwing out random, un-tested mechanics I might as well add one more ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment