|
|
Post by ODDYSSEUS on Jul 27, 2022 14:04:52 GMT -6
Q1: Does 1d12 for resolution break the game?
Q2: Is 2d6 bell curve mechanically necessary?
Q3: Would you do it?
Q4: Have you done it?
If "Yes" to Q4, observations?
(Clarification: For Man-to-Man and Fantastic)
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 28, 2022 8:44:42 GMT -6
Well, it probably wouldn't break the game, just make high numbers (10+) make less effective (because they're easier to get with a d12) while leaving average numbers more or less unaffected, according to my quick calculations. That means, if you believe tough fighters should be less tough and easier to kill, try the d12. I probably would give it a try, but I'm very much into 2d6 for many of my games, so I'd probably not keep using the d12  |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jul 28, 2022 9:16:31 GMT -6
In one of your other threads you advocated for giving Wizards 8 man-to-man attacks. Fighting with his dagger, the Wizard needs to roll a 12 to kill a Man in plate armor.
With 2d6 the Wizard's odds of rolling at least one 12 out of 8 attacks is roughly 20%.
With 1d12 the Wizard's odds of rolling at least one 12 out of 8 attacks is roughly 50%.
Therefore switching from 2d6 to 1d12 makes your Wizard 2.5x more likely to kill a plate-armored opponent.
As for the man in plate armor (assuming for the sake of argument his weapon of choice is a sword) with 2d6 he kills the wizard 58% of the time; with 1d12 he kills the wizard 50% of the time. Not a huge difference. The change from 2d6 to 1d12 affects the armored footman less than the unarmored wizard.
In conclusion, your 1d12 proposal means than a Wizard with dagger and robes can hold his own in melee vs. an armored footman. In the original Chainmail 2d6 system, the armored footman has a clear advantage, and the wizard would be wise to stay out of melee range and blast the armored footman with spells.
|
|
|
|
Post by ODDYSSEUS on Jul 28, 2022 9:45:58 GMT -6
Good Points. As far as my recent past advocacy for Super Hero Wizards is concerned, it was closer to a brainstorm gone wild and submitted to be ripped apart by the experts here. I am only a Chainmail/OD&D Padawan but always eager to learn and contribute. I cannot gauge from one thread to the next just how ridiculous or off base I may be before I post but know I do it honestly for the sake of posterity and my never ending quest to be a better Referee and Player.
|
|
|
|
Post by ODDYSSEUS on Jul 28, 2022 10:10:08 GMT -6
So... the bell curve is a necessary component of the game? I imagine the designers were aware of it and considered it G2G otherwise they would have done something different (like use a d12, for example).  |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jul 28, 2022 10:39:56 GMT -6
So... the bell curve is a necessary component of the game? I imagine the designers were aware of it and considered it G2G otherwise they would have done something different (like use a d12, for example). Gygax was very well aware of the bell curve, and a strong proponent for it. He writes about it several times in the books. With the bell curve, throwing 2d6, you have a higher chance of hitting an average of seven, so everything is balanced around that number.
Pretty sure there were multiple reasons for using d6 over d12. One reason was that most games used six-sided dice, and the other polyhedrons were a lot more difficult to find, if you could find them at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ODDYSSEUS on Jul 28, 2022 11:26:22 GMT -6
Do you suppose even if the other polyhedrons were widely available he would have stuck with d6 for Chainmail or would it have evolved much the same as the rest of the games?
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 29, 2022 11:40:55 GMT -6
Do you suppose even if the other polyhedrons were widely available he would have stuck with d6 for Chainmail or would it have evolved much the same as the rest of the games? Probably. Steve Perrin came up with the core game rules in 1970,* but he was also basing the systems on the dice conventions that were already established for miniatures wargames in the 60s. By the late 70s those dice were more available, and games took advantage of it; so it stands to reason that it would have been like that in the 60s too—the only real question is what those changes would have looked like. No one can say, really. Certainly not like the d10, d12 and d20 based wargames we see now, such as the stuff Osprey Wargames puts out; those all still rely on decades of evolution in rules writing styles and game playing styles. One of the first things designers did with the fancy dice is to use the d20s (which counted 0-9 twice) to replicate percent probabilities, so maybe you could start by translating the 2d6 probabilities into 1d100 rolls, and then tailor your game from there? *edit: even the Man-to-Man rules? I'm actually a little hazy on who came up with that, just that 1:20 was Perrin and the Fantasy Supplement was Gygax. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jul 29, 2022 14:07:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jul 30, 2022 19:49:06 GMT -6
I have just assumed that d6s were the only (commonly) available die to be chosen to be used.
I have been using a d20 for the man to man tables with the target numbers converted to be about the same % chance.
Found it easier to roll many d20s than many pairs of d6s
Kept the 2d6 for Fantasy combat as everyone only get one roll per round , where as I give one roll per fighting capacity on man to man.
Not sure how a d12 would map the the probabilities of 2d6 to give the roughly same outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ODDYSSEUS on Jul 30, 2022 20:01:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 30, 2022 20:17:28 GMT -6
Not sure how a d12 would map the the probabilities of 2d6 to give the roughly same outcomes.  |
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jul 30, 2022 21:06:27 GMT -6
Not sure how a d12 would map the the probabilities of 2d6 to give the roughly same outcomes. So it seems it would make things at the high end hit more often on the d12 than 2d6, TN 11 and 12 on 2d6 becoming a 12 on the d12 |
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jul 30, 2022 21:09:01 GMT -6
I am always impressed by the skills and knowhow I see on the forums. So much theory over my head, where I just went with anydice and gut feeling on which one to use |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 30, 2022 21:42:17 GMT -6
I have just assumed that d6s were the only (commonly) available die to be chosen to be used. I have been using a d20 for the man to man tables with the target numbers converted to be about the same % chance. Found it easier to roll many d20s than many pairs of d6s Kept the 2d6 for Fantasy combat as everyone only get one roll per round , where as I give one roll per fighting capacity on man to man. Not sure how a d12 would map the the probabilities of 2d6 to give the roughly same outcomes. Query: how do you handle modifiers? Are those simply carried over to the d20 roll, creating linear +/-5% increments like we see in normal D&D combat; or do you handle modifiers on the 2d6 bell curve, and then convert the final number over to its d20 probability? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 30, 2022 22:16:17 GMT -6
So it seems it would make things at the high end hit more often on the d12 than 2d6, TN 11 and 12 on 2d6 becoming a 12 on the d12 It should be reasonably straightforward to map the 2d6 target numbers into different 1d12 target numbers that produce very similar hit probabilities. E.g., something like this: | 2d6 Target | 1d12 Target | Prob. note | | 2 | 1 | Same | | 3 | ? | ? | | 4 | 2 | Same | | 5 | 3 | Same | | 6 | 4 | d12 has 3% advantage | | 7 | 6 | Same | | 8 | 8 | Same | | 9 | 10 | 2d6 has 3% advantage | | 10 | 11 | Same | | 11 | 12 | Same | | 12 | ? | ? |
You'd have to think about what you want to do with 2d6 target numbers 3 and 12. Fortunately, these aren't commonly required on the M2M table. Not sure there are any 3s at all, and there's only a handful of 12s for smaller weapons vs plate or plate+sheild. Possibly, you could just call these 11s and be done with it. Or, you could consider rerolls or some other mechanism? |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 30, 2022 23:51:37 GMT -6
A d12 roll of 12 followed by a 9+ would have the same probability of a 2d6 roll of 12, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 31, 2022 12:27:32 GMT -6
I'm sure it would totally screw the probabilities, but I approve of anything that uses the d12 as a matter of principle!  |
|
|
|
Post by ochrejelly on Jul 31, 2022 12:38:00 GMT -6
* Jeff Perren, not Steve Perrin Do you suppose even if the other polyhedrons were widely available he would have stuck with d6 for Chainmail or would it have evolved much the same as the rest of the games? Probably. Steve Perrin came up with the core game rules in 1970,* but he was also basing the systems on the dice conventions that were already established for miniatures wargames in the 60s. By the late 70s those dice were more available, and games took advantage of it; so it stands to reason that it would have been like that in the 60s too—the only real question is what those changes would have looked like. No one can say, really. Certainly not like the d10, d12 and d20 based wargames we see now, such as the stuff Osprey Wargames puts out; those all still rely on decades of evolution in rules writing styles and game playing styles. One of the first things designers did with the fancy dice is to use the d20s (which counted 0-9 twice) to replicate percent probabilities, so maybe you could start by translating the 2d6 probabilities into 1d100 rolls, and then tailor your game from there? *edit: even the Man-to-Man rules? I'm actually a little hazy on who came up with that, just that 1:20 was Perrin and the Fantasy Supplement was Gygax. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 31, 2022 13:13:59 GMT -6
* Jeff Perren, not Steve Perrin Probably. Steve Perrin came up with the core game rules in 1970,* but he was also basing the systems on the dice conventions that were already established for miniatures wargames in the 60s. By the late 70s those dice were more available, and games took advantage of it; so it stands to reason that it would have been like that in the 60s too—the only real question is what those changes would have looked like. No one can say, really. Certainly not like the d10, d12 and d20 based wargames we see now, such as the stuff Osprey Wargames puts out; those all still rely on decades of evolution in rules writing styles and game playing styles. One of the first things designers did with the fancy dice is to use the d20s (which counted 0-9 twice) to replicate percent probabilities, so maybe you could start by translating the 2d6 probabilities into 1d100 rolls, and then tailor your game from there? *edit: even the Man-to-Man rules? I'm actually a little hazy on who came up with that, just that 1:20 was Perrin and the Fantasy Supplement was Gygax. Gah! Yes! Sorry, my mind gets tongue tied this time of year. Hopefully everyone knew which Perrin I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by ODDYSSEUS on Jul 31, 2022 13:16:53 GMT -6
I have just assumed that d6s were the only (commonly) available die to be chosen to be used. I have been using a d20 for the man to man tables with the target numbers converted to be about the same % chance. Found it easier to roll many d20s than many pairs of d6s Kept the 2d6 for Fantasy combat as everyone only get one roll per round , where as I give one roll per fighting capacity on man to man. Not sure how a d12 would map the the probabilities of 2d6 to give the roughly same outcomes. Query: how do you handle modifiers? Are those simply carried over to the d20 roll, creating linear +/-5% increments like we see in normal D&D combat; or do you handle modifiers on the 2d6 bell curve, and then convert the final number over to its d20 probability? I'm not sure yet if it is a good system but for modifiers (converting 2d6 to d20) I'm multiplying the modifier by 1.6 and rounding. +1 = +2, +2 = +3, +3 = +5, +4 = +6, etc. I've considered multiplying by 1.7 also, but as before I admit now I am not a math wizard so I really don't know what I'm doing. |
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jul 31, 2022 18:23:28 GMT -6
I have just assumed that d6s were the only (commonly) available die to be chosen to be used. I have been using a d20 for the man to man tables with the target numbers converted to be about the same % chance. Found it easier to roll many d20s than many pairs of d6s Kept the 2d6 for Fantasy combat as everyone only get one roll per round , where as I give one roll per fighting capacity on man to man. Not sure how a d12 would map the the probabilities of 2d6 to give the roughly same outcomes. Query: how do you handle modifiers? Are those simply carried over to the d20 roll, creating linear +/-5% increments like we see in normal D&D combat; or do you handle modifiers on the 2d6 bell curve, and then convert the final number over to its d20 probability? I have gone with the lazy approach Straight modifiers on the d20 Magic weapon +1 to +3 Cover for missiles is -3 Parry is -1 or -2 depending on weapon vs weapon Dex is -1 or +1 for missile for high or low dex Allows room for minor circumstance bonuses or penalties, like saying for the sake of example a rabbit might be unarmoured but -2 to hit due to size and speed, not that using man to man on a rabbit has ever come up... I know it doesn't give the correct change in % to hit but didn't want to recalculate each time As fantasy combat stayed 2d6 it has the flow on of magic weapons shine more for fighting magic or fantastic creatures than normal man types |
|
