🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:

>         Result above or below relevant trait (+ to die roll):
>Mod:  -5   -4   -3   -2   -1  (-)    0  (+)   +1   +2   +3   +4   +5
>+0     0    3    7   11   15  (36)  28  (36)  15   11    7    3    0
>+1     0    1    5    9   13  (28)  27  (45)  17   13    9    5    1
>+2     0    0    3    7   11  (21)  26  (55)  19   15   11    7    3
                                     ^^
That should be 24 - sorry for the poor math.  Although a slight error,
the corrected figure actually makes a lovelier graph!

>+3     0    0    1    5    9  (15)  21  (64)  19   17   13    9    6

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu

sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>Andy proposes using 2d10 and the following table:
>
>Roll:    <2  2-3  4-5  6-7  8-9  10-12  13-14  15-16  17-18  19-20  21+
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Levels:  -5   -4   -3   -2   -1     0     +1     +2     +3     +4   +5
>
...
>This is much gentler than 2d6, which (if you graph it) shows a much
>bigger jump in the middle of the graph.  2d6 also does not lend itself
>to modifying the die roll result, and modifying the level makes for a
>very bumpy progression.

	Note that on this dice table, modifying the die roll by +2 is very 
close to modifying the level by +1. It seems like you really want to allow 
smaller modifiers, and I suppose this is the way to do it: since this way, 
it is very easy to convert modifiers to levels (+2 mod -> +1 level). 

	OTOH, I see nothing wrong with a jump in the middle of the graph, so 
that people tend to do average. And while sometimes it is useful having 
smaller modifiers, it requires greater detail in the system. That is to say, 
it is easier to set a level modifier (which is just as coarsely grained as 
the attributes) than it is to set a 2d10 roll modifiers - because you have 
to be more exact. 

	I would still vote for the 2d6 and modify levels, allowing this as 
one of the increasingly expansive options. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University         | 

jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>
>	I would still vote for the 2d6 and modify levels, allowing this as 
>one of the increasingly expansive options. 

Okay, thanks for the vote.  I don't think I'll have three optional dice
mechanisms in the Addenda, though: in fact, the two that are currently
there feel too many.  I may just drop both of the current addenda dice
techniques and just go with one in the main text, and one in the
addenda.  Whether I use the 2d6 or 2d10 as the main text, though, I
don't know - waiting for other votes and arguments to come in . . .

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu

In article <1992Dec21.013601.2373@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>Whether I use the 2d6 or 2d10 as the main text, though, I
>don't know - waiting for other votes and arguments to come in . . .

I'd still vote for using d6's, since they are readily available and
have a better "feel" to them physically and intuitively.

I've always been partial to the simpler ideas, and to me the original
idea of 2d6 is more elegant and simple.

Besides, *my* simple game uses 6 sided dice only... :-)

Though as it turns out I am having real trouble making up a simple
combat system that goes with my mechanic.  I may have to scrap it and
just use FUDGE.  :-)

Eric