Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 17:00:02 GMT -6
Just when you thought the DCC quirky dice could be a pain, BHP have to outdo them with "ranges" on the dice rolls instead of just simply giving us "D#".
What's the deal here? What possible purpose is served by mixing it up when it comes to the very elementary procedure of dice rolling? Convenience and clarity is a bad thing?
Instead of simply stating 2d8+2 for example, now it's time to sit back and think about how youre going to come up w/ the dice range you need.
Bad call
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Oct 18, 2012 17:23:15 GMT -6
Do you mean: Why 4-24 instead of 4d6 or 2-7 instead of 1d6+1? If so, maybe (I'm guessing here) they went that way to keep the same effect while changing the "name" of the mechanics so as to avoid issues with the OGL?
Some of the big ranges caught me off guard for a sec but it was pretty intuitive to figure out since the d6 is so prevalent.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 18, 2012 17:52:13 GMT -6
Hi Darkschnauzer, and welcome to the board As you may know the "d notation" is a relatively modern concept that first appeared in 2nd edition AD&D (from memory). Number ranges were used in all D&Ds prior to that, including original D&D, which is the product which DD aims to emulate. So the use of number ranges makes DD a more authentic emulation of the original. As to what possible use number ranges could serve, two things come to mind without thinking too hard... Firstly, it is immediately obvious what the minimum and maximum values of a range are; they are in print before your eyes. Whereas you'd need to figure out which of 4d4+1 or 2d6+3 could give a higher value. Second, ranges are not prescriptive. They don't tell the referee how the range should be achieved, only what the range should be. Thus the referee can make up his own mind on how to roll for 10-1000, for example. Finally, it's worth stating that the "blame" for use of number ranges cannot fairly be laid on BHP. As editor/co-author of DD, I accept full responsibility for that particular decision. edit: corrected spelling of "notation".
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Oct 18, 2012 18:56:37 GMT -6
Second, ranges are not prescriptive. They don't tell the referee how the range should be achieved, only what the range should be. Thus the referee can make up his own mind on how to roll for 10-1000, for example.
That's true, of course - but it's also true that different means of producing those 10-1000 results may well have quite different distributions (10d100, 1d991+9, etc.). Obviously some of these distributions are feasible with ordinary dice and others would require some other kind of random number generator, but in any case I think it's disingenuous to claim that ranges are freer than dice prescriptions; they just convey a different kind of information.
For my money, dice prescriptions are more useful, but that's beside the point.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Oct 18, 2012 19:39:34 GMT -6
I am used to the ranges (i.e., 2-7) from every kind of D&D I play, whether it be OD&D, Holmes, or AD&D 1e, so I don’t see the problem. I have to wonder what the OP’s criterion is for “normal!” There’s a sort of elegant universality to it which transcends the niche of RPGs, and there is just no need to teach yet one more bit of gamer lingo. It’s rarely a challenge to know what dice to use, but when it is, it’s almost like a mini-game to figure it out. I like that, but maybe I’m a nerd like that. I guess it’s a matter of taste, but I have to give kudos to waysoftheearth for resolving such questions by simply sticking with the original!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 18, 2012 20:04:57 GMT -6
I think it's disingenuous to claim that ranges are freer than dice prescriptions; It is all well and good then that I didn't "claim that ranges are freer", for it would sorely aggrieve me if the readership here were to think me in any way "disingenuous"
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 18, 2012 20:14:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ehiker133 on Oct 18, 2012 20:52:37 GMT -6
Finally, it's worth stating that the "blame" for use of number ranges cannot fairly be laid on BHP. As editor/co-author of DD, I accept full responsibility for that particular decision. Oi! Can't I get a little bit of the blame for catching all of the "D#" references?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 19, 2012 2:05:30 GMT -6
I love the fact that DD DOESN'T use the "d" notation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2012 18:24:05 GMT -6
Interesting article. And i see that its more "purist" when it comes to the choice of dice notation. Still, it sucks in my opinion. I dont like math, and having to figure out what dice to use. Thankfully, of the old school games i play, only DD has went w/ this awful choice. Good going waysoftheearth, youve probably done your best to turn a good segment of people off to the game!
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Oct 19, 2012 18:43:22 GMT -6
I think it's disingenuous to claim that ranges are freer than dice prescriptions; It is all well and good then that I didn't "claim that ranges are freer", for it would sorely aggrieve me if the readership here were to think me in any way "disingenuous" OK, fair enough. That one's on Coach Tracy, but I hope we can all agree that ranges are less clear than prescriptions because prescriptions can be interpreted to construe a distribution in addition to a minimum and maximum. By the way, I'd never hold the use of ranges rather than prescriptions against a product; certainly lots of people found a way to work with ranges in the early days of the hobby. I just think that dice ranges might in some cases be a peculiarity of the early game (like descending AC - which I use!) that we go out of our way to rationalize even though its primary appeal to us lies in its fetish-character, so to speak.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Oct 19, 2012 19:04:53 GMT -6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea with DD was to more closely clone OD&D? Swords & Wizardry seems to fill the "old school but not so quirky" hole. Believe it or not, going back to basics to OD&D has been a bit rough for me and I've been trying to do as much research in order to have everything ready for my game once the box arrives. But ranges didn't really bother me. Everything doing 1-6 damage, the idea that Intelligent swords is what makes the Fighter shine, things like that took longer to wrap my 2e+ head around than ranges. But, I would think people who are interested in rules light / old-school will forge ahead. I can't wait for the game to be released
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2012 19:20:37 GMT -6
Good going waysoftheearth, youve probably done your best to turn a good segment of people off to the game! darkschnauzer, you'll probably find an appreciative audience over at the Dragonsfoot forum with that kind of tone. Most people here on this forum are happy that a bit more respect is shown around here. Being new here you probably haven't clicked onto that yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2012 20:33:25 GMT -6
You must have some pretty thin skin.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Oct 19, 2012 20:46:17 GMT -6
You must have some pretty thin skin. Weren't you the guy that was fussing that 2-7 is difficult as opposed to 1d6+1? But anyway... it is sorta strange to see them represented this way in this day and age. But, idrahil is right: DD was meant to cleave closer to the original than did S&W, so such things should (and would) be expected. It's possible it could slightly confuse for a very, very short time a person who is 100% new to such gaming... but anyone who it truly stumps is pretty likely not the kind of person that would be interested in rpgs in the first place. Anyone who's gamed longer than...I dunno... a month?...a week... this isn't going to cause them any undo brain-squeezing.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 19, 2012 21:01:26 GMT -6
Interesting article. And i see that its more "purist" when it comes to the choice of dice notation. Still, it sucks in my opinion. I dont like math, and having to figure out what dice to use. Thankfully, of the old school games i play, only DD has went w/ this awful choice. Good going waysoftheearth, youve probably done your best to turn a good segment of people off to the game! I have not made any effort to turn people off DD -- quite the reverse. Delving Deeper is what it is with good reason. I'm saddened that you don't like it, but the truth is it's impossible to please everyone. The good news is, if you really can't stand to read "2-12" instead of "2d6", you can replace every number range in the text with d notion yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Ronin84 on Oct 19, 2012 21:12:56 GMT -6
Wow, all I can say is this.
Ways, thanks for all your hard work and this gamer is not bothered by the ranges nor are the five 12 year old kids I am teaching the game to...and the 9 year old has a pretty good grasp on it as well.
Ronin
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Oct 19, 2012 21:18:56 GMT -6
I'm more concerned about the general apathy I've been hearing lately for weird dice mechanics and descriptions. I love that their making me think of fun and interesting ways to bamboozle my Players into making change with their dice. And I'm all for DCC and their strange dice. I remember, fondly, the day when funny dice were to role players what striped poles were to barbers.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Oct 19, 2012 21:29:16 GMT -6
It’s rarely a challenge to know what dice to use, but when it is, it’s almost like a mini-game to figure it out. I like that, but maybe I’m a nerd like that. I like it too! I suspect it's because we've both read the first section of the DMG and know how to work with dice. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Oct 19, 2012 22:52:16 GMT -6
Mr. or Ms. "darkschnauzer", hiding behind your anonymity, while I fully respect the opinions of others, your tone, sir or ma'am, is one that would prompt me to kindly escort you to the door, bid you a good evening, close the portal behind you, and return to my gaming table to have fun with my friends and brothers of the hobby.
Please take your over-estimation of your own opinions to other boards better suited to disrespect and immaturity of conversation.
Simon, you sir, are a model of professionalism and courtesy. An exalt to you, not only for your continued work on such a worthy product, but your absolutely wonderful response to this sheer dullness of capacity. I would hope to take such a personal affront with the great poise as you have, but when defending the decency of others, I shall dust some feathers with this:
My 11yo seems to have had no problem whatsoever playing DD with his friends as he did with the 3lbb's, so as the contemporary question is asked of whether or not one is "Smarter Than A Fifth-grader." I believe, friends, we have our answer.
Cheers, and raised pints all 'round.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 19, 2012 23:46:25 GMT -6
DD was based on the game before the "d" notification became the norm. The number range is more authentic, it's a salute to the original and I love it. In fact DD is now the game I always play and I can't see that changing any time soon.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by aramis on Oct 20, 2012 0:53:29 GMT -6
Hi Darkschnauzer, and welcome to the board As you may know the "d notation" is a relatively modern concept that first appeared in 2nd edition AD&D (from memory). It well predates AD&D in total. It was used in Traveller, in 1977, in the xd+z form (as CT used only d6's). 1978's Starships & Spacemen (FGU) uses both xdy and dy notation modes (See pages 81-86.) AD&D 1E used dy notations in several places. Example: PHB p.19 It also uses xdy notations, as well. Example: PHB page 35 shows starting cash as 3d6, 5d4, 2d4... xdy+z on PHB page 49. A quick skim of holmes does not show d-notations. Likewise, not 0E.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Oct 20, 2012 7:25:24 GMT -6
So this user joined this forum just to post this rant against ranges? Really, you have nothing better to do?
I will point out Vol 1 - Page 7 with the header THE DICE discusses all this.... Was it worth posting?
-Mike
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 20, 2012 8:58:57 GMT -6
A quick skim of holmes does not show d-notations. Likewise, not 0E. It's not in the 1st edition Holmes (which includes the pdf out there on the 'net), but the 2nd print (Nov 1978, after the PHB was published) adds the notation to the section on USING THE DICE: "In some places the reader will note an abbreviated notation for the type of die has been used The first number is the number of dice used, the letter "d" appears, and the last number is the type of dice used. Thus, "2d4" would mean that two 4-sided dice would be thrown (or one 4-sided would be thrown twice); "3d12" would indicate that three 12 sided dice are used, and so on". The above is the same text quoted by Steve Winter in his article, but he erroneously refers to it as the "1974 Blue Box" edition. He's also wrong that it's not used anywhere in the rulebook. It's actually been added in three places to the tables on the detachable Reference Tables page: the attack tables say "(use 1d20)" and the turning table says "(use 2d6)". My first D&D book was a 3rd edition Holmes so I've associated this notation with D&D from the beginning. So this user joined this forum just to post this rant against ranges? Really, you have nothing better to do? I smell a regenerating humanoid...
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Oct 20, 2012 12:11:40 GMT -6
"thin and rubbery, ..."
I think from a usability point of view the xdy+z notation is slightly better. But it seems unlikely to me that anyone would be persuaded one way or the other to buy or play the game based on that.
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Oct 20, 2012 12:51:46 GMT -6
There's actually table at the start of the first book that explains how to generate the various distributions used. This seems like a strange thing to get worked up about, either way.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by aramis on Oct 24, 2012 21:31:38 GMT -6
There's actually table at the start of the first book that explains how to generate the various distributions used. This seems like a strange thing to get worked up about, either way. It's a clarity issue, and speed of lookup issue. There is a good reason that it has become the industry standard to use xdy+z notation... while it adds a paragraph to the system mechanics, it also is explicitly clear and ready recognition of what dice to roll. For example, 2-16 can be 1d10+1d6 or 2d8. The range method doesn't make it clear (tho' the table in bk 1 strongly implies always using a uniform type of dice). 3-18 can be d4+d6+d8, 2d4+d10, or 3d6. The thing is, different sized dice give a very different curve from matched dice. It's a minor issue for many old-hands, like myself; I still much prefer dice notation rather than ranges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 20:51:35 GMT -6
Interesting historical question: When did the "d notation" appear?
As I recall, both my Moldvay basic set and 1e AD&D had the "d notation." Sadly, I no longer own either of them, so I can’t verify this.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 18, 2012 21:26:59 GMT -6
Interesting historical question: When did the "d notation" appear? As I recall, both my Moldvay basic set and 1e AD&D had the "d notation." Sadly, I no longer own either of them, so I can’t verify this. I don't know off the top of my head exactly when d notion first "appeared", but it's important (IMHO) to note the difference between incidental appearances of d notation, and dogma (in D&D). AD&D, for example, uses number ranges for all weapon damage (PHB p37), and also for all numbers of monsters appearing, and damage dealt for each monster attack mode (MM throughout). However, the spells section of the PHB uses a mixture of number ranges, d notation, and (sometimes) even uses both the ranges and the d notion. I.e., it is explained (for example) that "creatures with 1 to 30 hit points will be stunned for 4-16 (4d4) rounds." (PHB p88). So, while d notion does appear in AD&D (and also in earlier sources) it was not yet "the one true way" of expressing random ranges in AD&D. Of course, DD emulates even earlier material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 22:47:39 GMT -6
Hmm....after all this time I never noticed OD&D doesn't use dice notation. Even when looking at the books at the table, I guess my mind just "auto-corrects" the numbers.
|
|