|
|
Post by vanguard on Dec 10, 2007 19:09:44 GMT -5
Okay, so I'm taking a stab at resurrecting some older "3.75" material and making a new PHB. But there's one major question that needs asked... which, for general play, dice do you prefer? The d20, or 3d6?
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanhenry on Dec 10, 2007 19:59:40 GMT -5
Well, there's less adding involved in rolling 1d20 than 3d6; hence less opportunity for errors, and it's more likely to result in quicker gameplay. Also, the d20 system is already well established with genres in science fiction, fantasy, and modern games. So my vote, if I'm somehow entitled to one, would be for a d20 system.
Ryan
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Dec 12, 2007 12:03:31 GMT -5
Well, I wanted to get some feedback on this for a few reasons.
One of the important ones is that Wotc seems be heading towards a 1990's style draconian enforcement over the game system with the new SRD. If the core mechanic is now 3d6 + mod > DC, then their strongest legal argument evaporates because the game no longer relies on the d20.
Mechanically I tend to lean towards 3d6 because it smooths out the curve and eliminates a lot of the uber-randomness of the game. To me, the d20 system tends to push the 'get all the mods you can' mindset because of how incredibly random the results can be. The desire for mods seems to be a desire for players just to have control of the situation of the game. By cutting down the randomness, the hope is that the design to get mods all the time is also reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 12, 2007 12:12:26 GMT -5
Well, I wanted to get some feedback on this for a few reasons. Mechanically I tend to lean towards 3d6 because it smooths out the curve and eliminates a lot of the uber-randomness of the game. To me, the d20 system tends to push the 'get all the mods you can' mindset because of how incredibly random the results can be. The desire for mods seems to be a desire for players just to have control of the situation of the game. By cutting down the randomness, the hope is that the design to get mods all the time is also reduced. True (also thought about 3d6 and even 2d10) but isn't 3.5 a d20-system? I torn apart...But I'm tending to keep the d20 out of "3.5-tradition" |
|
|
|
Post by Brix on Dec 12, 2007 12:14:50 GMT -5
Personally I prefer d20, too. But there is no reason why not to present your rules with d6. I've never seen a game based on d6  Just make sure that you prefix your pages in the wiki with d6_, please. For example d6_ability_scores or _van_rules_ability_scores (for your version of d20) I've put this one in F.A.Q. today. Maybe you have not seen it now. Please leave the generic names free, until we have a consolidated 3.75E. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Dec 12, 2007 12:33:59 GMT -5
Well, my goal for 3P75 is to have a single, 64-page basic book with the core rules in it that anyone can reference and use. That means I'm going to need a consensus on which mechanic will be the main one for it... based on what you guys would be willing to support. i personally can use either.. but I prefer the 3d6 for the reasons I cited above.
(And, yes, the phb stuff I do will be prefixed to mark it more clearly.)
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Dec 12, 2007 12:48:39 GMT -5
Well, I think it's save to say that using a d20 or 3d6 does not create major discrepancies in rules. Just make it d20 or 3d6 and somehwere mention the option, advantages and disadvantages for using "the other dice"
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Dec 12, 2007 12:55:14 GMT -5
99 percent of the time, you're right. The 3d6 and d20 don't have too much discrepancy in the rules, since their ranges are similar and they both huge the same median.
There is one big exception, however... critical hit thresholds. It's impossible, for instance, to gain a critical hit (20) on a 3d6 as written. And, even when the ranges become possible (16, 17, etc), the odds of them occurring are dramatically different.
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Jan 2, 2008 13:52:44 GMT -5
sadly, I'm back to this question again, but there's a broader question we need to ask..
Is 3P75 a slavish update to 3.5? Is it a new direction than 4E using 3.5 as it's base? Is it trying to be true to a good game system, or is it trying to be a new and better Dungeons and Dragons?
I'm not being snarky, it's just that I really don't know, and I've hit a point where I need to start answering these questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on Jan 4, 2008 15:58:14 GMT -5
sadly, I'm back to this question again, but there's a broader question we need to ask.. Is 3P75 a slavish update to 3.5? Is it a new direction than 4E using 3.5 as it's base? Is it trying to be true to a good game system, or is it trying to be a new and better Dungeons and Dragons? I'm not being snarky, it's just that I really don't know, and I've hit a point where I need to start answering these questions. Well, I guess I cannot really help you out. You have to decide for yourself. Its your "system" and you are writing it. in the end you have to decide for yourself, but here are a few points to consider: 1) is there already enough d20-stuff out there? 2) are there anough d20-system variants out there. If so, why bother with a new variant and a lot of work. 3) What was the original purpose of this site and why have you joint this site? Beacuse you want a new (variant) RPG-system or because you wanted to keep playing 3.5 with some revised-problematic-rules? 4) I know it's tempting to do a complete system overhault, even write something "new" based on SRD. I have began such projects several times but in the end abandoned them - at first its seems easy, but the farther you go, the more problematic: there a bits and pieces that dont work too well or not at all, you have noone to actually test the rules, etc...So, the question is what is your goal with such a project? Write it because of having too much time? Because you want to a make "name" for yourself? Perhaps, money? That's it for the moment. if i can think of anything more, i will post. Problem with the community here (at least for now), we are too few. So, i guess you will not find much help here (but I hope for the contrary). CU |
|
|
|
Post by the803 on Jan 5, 2008 14:04:49 GMT -5
Unearthed Arcana has OGL rules for converting critical threat ranges to 3d6. Check out d20srd.org for the full text of those rules.
Instead of 3d6, try 1d6+2d8-2, (it's easiest to just treat 8's as 0's) This produces a nice bell curve, with a range of 1 to 20 and a mean of 10.5, just like the d20.
As for which to use, don't worry about it; bell curve rolls represent a "more conservative" use of whatever skill is being used, with lower chances of critical success and automatic failure.
|
|
shea
Refugee
Posts: 17
|
Post by shea on Jan 7, 2008 21:37:58 GMT -5
booo to 3d6.
I mean - "d20" is so totally open source.
It is not legally possibly for wotc to prevent any form of usage of "d20s" in a rule system.
SOOOO totally impossible. Not even thinkable really.
Where did that idea come from anyhow?
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Jan 8, 2008 11:53:23 GMT -5
The idea for 3d6 is basically smooth out the randomness that the d20 generates, cutting down on the more 'wild' results (particularly at early levels) and allowing players and GMs to get a better feel for what characters are capable of doing.
One of d20's weaknesses is that things are SO random that players spend an inordinate amount of effort 'modding up' their characters to reduce the chances that the DICE will screw them over. Indeed, WotC's own site has an entire series of forums dedicated to JUST this proposition. ("Optimal Character Builds")
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Jan 8, 2008 11:58:41 GMT -5
This is a tough question to answer. There's a LOT of d20 material out there, but it's all very samey. There are dozens of publications on Orcs and Drow, for instance.. but precious few for sci-fi games. There's a bunch of Steampunk books, for instance, but they're all about 'adding steampunk as magic items into D&D'. It's very difficult to find a d20 game that is NOT just D&D with some window dressing.
There are myriad of variants too, but few that are cohesive. Most are just house-rule tweaks on existing problems (like grappling), while others take the entire SRD as is, and change some names.
In my case, it was largely to present my 'fluff' in game settings to play to a wide audience. The trouble is, then as now, I keep hitting the 'd20 wall' where the game system, as is, really is only CAPABLE of being Dungeons and Dragons.To me, 3.75 would be a cleanup of d20 that also allows for a greater variety in campaigns and styles of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Jan 8, 2008 12:00:14 GMT -5
Actually, the OGL is a little problematic in that since, since it ALSO establishes WotC as the managers of the system - and they can change things as they will. While I think WotC would lose any challenge in the end, the question will be 'can you afford to FIGHT to that point'?
|
|
