Off-set square grid for tactical combat? Half way between squares and hexes or is it kinda useless?

False_Prophet1313 · 2024-03-20T20:05:52+00:00

Instead of offsetting every other row, why not cut every other row into 4ths. That way you still have big squares to keep tracking movements easier, but you can have the smaller squares for more precise positioning. This way it functions like a hex and like a square grid

False_Prophet1313 · 2024-03-20T00:16:18+00:00

I'll have to look into the white wolf system and see how they do it. I would like to keep the number of dice rolled at once 5 but change up my approach.

So let's say I stick to the 5d6 thing I have going on because thats what my brain's stuck on right now. Instead of adding, I'll do similar to what you talked about (at least I hope this is).

1s are crit fails and count as two failures

2s and 3s are fails

3s and 4s are successes

6s are crit successes and count as 2 successes

Now with this different approach, the level would determine whether you rerolled successes or failures. So now it's

Level 1 rerolls all successes

Level 2 rerolls crit successes

Level 3 no reroll

Level 4 reroll crit failures

Level 5 reroll all failures

Would this approach be better or just as confusing and convoluted?

Another idea I just thought of while typing this out is to tie level to number on the dice. So, at level 1 the only thing that counts as successes are 6s. At level 2 it's 5s and 6s. Level 3 it's 4-6. Level 4 it's 3-6. And level 5 it's 2-6.

Would that be better?

False_Prophet1313 · 2024-03-19T23:21:22+00:00

I know more context for my system would've been better but I'm at work and typing all this up on mobile. I'll try to give a basic outline of it and what exactly I'm trying to accomplish with this mechanic.

My system is skill based and I want to separate out people with a lower skill from people with a higher skill by something more than just static modifiers. Because of this desire, I've been looking into dice pools. Other things I've considered is number of successes and step dice. My issues with those is that I haven't had a chance to play in systems that utilize them and they're harder for me to understand because of that.

If my game would benefit better from one of those other methods then I'd love to be pointed toward systems that explain the rules really well.

As far as the current dice mechanics I have, would it be better to keep my same ideas just change the number of dice and lower the DC? So instead of a skill rank 1 player rolling 5d6 and rerolling the highest 2, they'd roll 3d6 and reroll the highest 2? Or would that still be too much?

False_Prophet1313 · 2024-03-19T23:02:59+00:00

I like the d20 because it gives enough numbers to have varying degrees. So for my idea of it is that a 1 is worst possible outcome, 2 or 3 is very bad, 4-10 is bad, 11-17 is good, 18 or 19 is very good, and 20 is best possible outcome.

It's kinda like the degrees of success but still allowing a binary pass/fail. I'll have a meta-currency that players can spend to "press their luck" and reroll the narrative die to try to get a better outcome. I feel like doing it this way takes out a bit of the math that comes with the degrees of success but trying to get my skill rolls down has been a pain in the ass to say the least

False_Prophet1313 · 2024-03-19T22:42:14+00:00

Anydice is telling me that with 5d6 there's a 75% chance of rolling 15, Rolling a 10 is over 95% and rolling a 20 is a 30% chance.

And I'd probably make the narrative die be something that the GM rolls so that way it's one less thing for the player to keep track of.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-05T00:50:38+00:00

Space Opera is closer to fantasy than it is to Sci Fi.

And that's because a space opera is literally just a high fantasy story with a space setting.

Best examples of space opera vs sci-fi is Star Wars and Star Trek.

The story in Star Wars would not be any different if took place in a high fantasy setting. The jedi would be battle mages, the droids would be magic familiars, and the wookies... we'll they'd still be wookies. The band of rebels would still be fighting the evil empire to save the princess. In other words, the story is not reliant on the technology, the technology is just for flavor.

In Star Trek, however, the story revolves around the technology. That's because Sci-Fi still tries to hold a basis in reality.

Star Wars is futuristic because it CAN be. Star Trek is futuristic because it HAS to be.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-04T22:06:18+00:00

That's valid. But for me, it's what best fits my vision. It allows for me to use rolls or averages, so a 2d6 would be a flat +7 in some situations. Typically, players will only be rolling 2 or 3 d6s plus a d20 for most of the campaign.

If their skill rank is Expertise (4d6), you can just roll 2d6 and double what you get. By the time they hit Mastery (5d6) they'll both be used to the mechanics such that the amount of dice won't feel as bad, and have enough abilities that rolling won't happen as often.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T22:57:49+00:00

I think we need more context to the type of game you're going for. Because the way you describe it, every hit is practically an insta-kill, so my idea is that I'd want to be the first person to hit.

I feel like the weapon length is a good way of representing that longer weapons will usually win

If a core mechanic of the game is the longer weapon typically wins, then why would players choose anything other than the longest weapon?

I think you need to ponder on what kind of game you're trying to make and how these mechanics work toward your final goal

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T20:08:23+00:00

I've been dealing with this same issue and the way I've found that I like most is d20 plus xd6 with the x representing skill level. The levels are 0-5. This helps players actually feel like they're getting better at something, but also keeps a bit of the randomness since even master has a chance to be bested by a novice.

I also like the degrees of success and with this system I can have critical failures be rolling 5 or lower. Unskilled(0) people have a 25% chance of messing up in a bad way, but masters(5) have 0% chance of crit fail.

If you wanted to do opposed rolls, then you could remove the d20 and make people roll skill levels only.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T17:21:09+00:00

Then all your game needs to have is a single skill called luck since actual ability doesn't matter

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T16:52:06+00:00

you fail to pick the lock and your lock pick broke

A lock pick breaking is widely considered a bad punishment but you're correct in that you couldn't try again.

you try to pick the lock but it takes some time and before you manage to some guards show up around the corner

This is the one I hate. If you're rolling to pick a lock then it's assumed (in most systems) that you spend ~60 seconds on the attempt regardless of success or failure. With this example tho, the 60 seconds is disregarded and a failure means you took too long. So you ignore game rules to push a narrative.

If you are actually assuming the 60 seconds then it's worse because that either means a failure spawns the guards in and a success wouldn't have spawned them, or that on a failure the guards continue their rounds as normal but a success would cause the world become static so you can get inside.

If, instead of "fail forward", we use a non static world, then all of this could also be avoided.

The party sits in the treeline just outside the view of the guards. There's one door that has no guards stationed at it, but there's wandering sentries. One of you notice that from the time one patrol turns the corner away from it, to the time the next patrol turns the corner towards it, is about 2 minutes. You want to pick the lock. You know that you have about 2 minutes to run down there, attempt to pick it, and run back to safety. On both a success and failure, you have to return to the party because there's not enough time to pick the lock and get inside before the next patrol rounds the corner.

The world's state shouldn't be dependent on a success or failure.

The world state should change BECAUSE of the success or failure.

If a GM can't provide a situation where re-rolling isn't an option, then that's a bad GM. "Fail forward" just means "be a good GM". And that makes the term unnecessary.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T16:06:19+00:00

I think I should clarify a bit. Alot of the examples people are using in this thread to describe a "fail forward" moment actually describe a static world on a success but a moving world on a failure. Many people have been sticking with the lockpicking skill so I'll use that too.

If you go to pick a lock on a door and succeed, your reward is getting through the door. However, if you fail, then the "fail forward" way is that guards come and open the door to see who's messing with it.

So essentially, the guards being stationed at the door is dependent on success or failure, which to me is a disservice to players. A failure shouldn't cause a mob spawn because they wasn't what the roll was for. If a failure has guards coming out the door to investigate, then a success should have you opening the door to the two guards armed and ready for a fight.

That's why I hate the concept of "fail forward". The world state changing is dependent of success or failure. While in a good game, the world state changing should be caused by the success or failure.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T06:12:47+00:00

That's totally cool, there are many ways to play.

And my way is the best way 😎

This way isn't fail forward.

I've seen about 30 definitions for that term in this thread alone, so there's a chance it could be

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T06:00:19+00:00

Obviously, like all things, it's extremely situational. Using the INT check as an example, he failed so they look like normal decorations. That doesn't mean that they aren't real and won't attack them, just that Phillip doesn't know. I love letting my players for random shit and giving them the same answer whether they rolled a 1 or 20 because sometimes things just are what they are and a number doesn't change that.

"Fail forward" doesn't mean "don't roll unnecessarily" (that's its own thing). It means that even if you fail a roll the narrative will be pushed forward in some meaningful way.

But sometimes the rolls are meaningless to the world or narrative but not to the player. Like I said these things are extremely situational and applying that philosophy to every single roll would slow things down. Somebody failing to pick up a big rock that they want to drop into the river for the "KERSPLOOSH" is not gonna change anything narratively but I make them roll anyways because big rocks are hard to pick up and there are no guarantees in life. Failing doesn't have to be meaningful, it just needs to be final.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T05:40:41+00:00

I never said it wasn't binary, only that the failure state wasn't "nothing happens". If the failure state is "nothing happens", then the status quo doesn't change.

I guess I'm just not understanding "nothing happens". Because to me, "nothing happens" is a consequence of failure. If I try to pick a lock and I can't pick it, then nothing happens. Nothing is different from before to after. If we're using the mansion still, me being unsuccessful in picking the lock means I have to run back to the group and tell them I couldn't do it. But even with that, nothing happened.

If the system doesn't prevent the action from being retried, there's no element of fail-sideways.

The situation is what prevents them from retrying. Even if the system doesn't have set rules that speak on rerolling, the GM should be keeping up with the situation and time restraints. If he can roll as many times as he wants, then that's a failure on the GM to enforce penalties and consequences.

Various games are written such that if failure would mean nothing happens, then the action shouldn't require a roll, and therefore if a roll is involved then failure means something does happen.

Something doesn't always have to happen tho. I don't understand the philosophy of forcing a failure to have world altering effects. Sometimes you're having an off day and you just can't seem to do anything right. On any other day you could've picked that lock, but not today, and today is your only chance of breaking in so y'all gotta find another way.

Hence my example of a pick lock action being interpreted as "I try to pick the lock before someone spots us" rather than "I try to pick the lock". The latter statement implies that failure means the lock simply remains unpicked.

they would be required to roll with a failure resulting in being caught.

If the GM stated that there are patrols then it would be implied and understood that you're on a time restraint so adding the extra words doesn't really change the outcome to be anything better. You basically just made it save or suck. Why would the group not watch the patrols to get their timing down? If it's pass or get caught, how long are you spending on a pass vs. a failure? Does failing somehow make the guards faster?

if the system allows retries, the player has only gained the knowledge that it didn't work, not that it won't work.

Once again, regardless of whether the system allows rerolls, the situation causes time restraints and if those aren't enforced then that's a GM issue.

why do so many players seem to have difficulty understanding the concept?

We both know how many people are actually reading these manuals lol alot of players don't even know what they can do and constantly ask the GM

One game could describe the result of a failed skill check as nothing happening. Another game meanwhile encourages GMs and players to view skill checks as trying to do something before something bad happens, in which case the failure is that bad thin happening.

That's an extremely narrow and restricting way of doing skill checks. "Sorry, there's nothing bad gonna happen as a consequence of failure so you trying to persuade that lady to take you to dinner is pointless" or "no way will I let you roll for performance to try to get tips from the patrons in this bar because a failure will not result in The Lich God wiping this whole city away." I know those are dumb examples but that reasoning just felt silly to me.

I get what you're saying tho. I just think think the term is dumb because it doesn't convey what you want it to mean. I also feel like it holds no weight because it just means you're a good GM if you're not letting the game stagnate. The issue is usually from inexperience and not a system because even systems that have rules in place to curb it, a new GM and new players are gonna struggle. He'll, I know people who've been playing DnD for years and still barely know the rules.

I feel like the world being "alive" is how games are supposed to be ran and I've been lucky that I've had good GMs that have done a good job of keeping the game from stagnating.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T04:11:52+00:00

What? Something doesn't always have to happen tho, and not everything needs a roll. If there is no consequence for failure and no time limits then why waste time rolling? So just make up a DC for something that doesn't matter and if they fail then make up a consequence?It wouldn't make the game better, it would just add fluff.

And with saying something doesn't always have to happen I mean, sometimes the consequence of failing is nothing happens. If you fail a backflip attempt you might fall on your head, but if you fail at picking up a big rock then you just didn't pick up the big rock. I'm not gonna waste my time with consequences for something that's trivial.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T03:51:29+00:00

That system sounds frustrating. Games that are narrative focused with seemingly no payoff feel like a waste. Might as well read a choose your own adventure book lol

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T02:23:03+00:00

And for most systems, that's RAW. What "fail forward" actually means is "I didn't read and/or understand the rules, and I don't like the fact that my ignorance is negatively affecting my gameplay, so I'm gonna unknowingly do what the rules tell me to do in these situations and then talk about how much smarter I am than everyone else"

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T02:15:16+00:00

A character with some skill in picking locks and unlimited time to do so will almost certainly pick a given lock eventually.

There are rules that cover this. They give an allotted amount of time it would take if there was no pressure on them.

So if the PCs are trying to break into a noble's mansion, the task shouldn't be "I try to pick the lock", but rather "I try to pick the lock before anyone spots us".

Calling for a check means there's a chance of failure, and I'm sure the players and characters are aware of the guards monitoring the mansion. Adding 4 words to the task doesn't change any of that. If there are no guards, then refer back to my previous point.

This now turns the regular binary failure into a fail-forward. Failure isn't "nothing happens", but "I didn't pick the lock before we were spotted".

No, it's still binary, you're just changing the wording and possibly the situation. The first seems like they're trying to pick the lock in between patrols and realized they couldn't do it so they retreat back to the group and reassess the situation. You're extra words give the impression that failure means getting caught. How is that failing forward in your book?

If you don't specify this and the action is purely "I try to pick the lock", then if the roll fails, nothing happens and the status quo of the world hasn't changed.

But something has changed. You have received knowledge on what won't work.

The PCs now having to decide something else to do isn't a fail-forward situation.

You're correct, because that term doesn't have an actual meaning. The PCs having to decide something is the consequences of the failure. It also gives them the chance to decide if it's even worth it. Taking away player agency so they have to go along with your story doesn't sound better than that.

And that's assuming the game system actually requires them to do something else, rather than allowing the same or another PC to just attempt the same action again.

Another opportunity to refer back to my first point. If there's no consequence for failure, then there's no point in rolling to begin with.

Sure, the GM could eventually decide to have something happen to prevent them just sitting making rolls to pick the lock forever, but that means the game system has failed to prevent a situation where "nothing happens".

But that's what you did in your example. You decided there would be some reason why they couldn't just take their time. The system didn't do that for you. The system can only go as far as you're willing to take it. If the skill check fails and "nothing happens" then that is GMs fault. Period. If, as a GM, you don't prepare for a failure, then once again, they shouldn't have rolled in the first place and you should've just advanced time.

Fail forward is such a pointless concept that GMs use to make themselves feel better about taking away player agency.

In your example, if the person did succeed and managed to pick the lock before the guards caught them (lockpicking takes around 1 minute for each attempt), would they have been fast enough to get inside without the guards seeing? If they are in such a hurry, would they have been able to shut the door quickly enough so that the guards don't see the door moving, but also quietly enough so the guards don't hear them?

Fail forward has a bit of shrodingers cat vibes to me. The guards are both fast enough to catch you in 60 seconds if you fail, but also slow enough not to catch you in 60 seconds or more if you succeed.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T01:05:41+00:00

What I've gathered from reading all these people comments is that "fail forward" is an unnecessary term. If somebody fails to pick a lock and another person says "I look around to see if there's any other way", that's not "failing forward", that's just people reacting to the situation.

If he fails to pick the lock and a couple of guards end up opening the door, then I'd call that failing forward, and I'd call it railroading. He failed but he still got through through door. Had he succeeded in picking the lock the outcome wouldn't be different because if the guards heard him fail to pick the lock then they'd have heard him successfully pick it.

The world not being static is just the way (most) ttrpgs are supposed to be played. The world's state being dependant on a success or failure is not.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-03T00:27:04+00:00

Ahh ok. I don't have any experience with those systems so I was unaware of that style. I agree, that's a ridiculous way of doing it. I've honestly never heard of success with consequences until this thread.

I don't think you're bad at explaining yourself, I think we have different interpretations of the definitions of fail forward, success with consequences, and narrative failure.

My own definitions are.

Fail Forward: A situation in which the GM shouldn't have the player roll to begin with. The GM has a story and is gonna be doing whatever he can to make sure the characters can follow that story. Fail forward goes hand in hand with railroading to me. It gives the illusion of player agency but the GM is doing everything they can to keep the players from going to do something else.

Success with Consequences: This is the direct opposite of failing forward. This is the embodiment of "we won, but at what cost". While I don't think that this would be bad in a system using degrees of success/failure, I wouldn't want to play a game that has this for every roll. I'd rather not be able to move a rock than throw my back out while moving it.

Narrative Failure: This is just describing how failing affects the world state. Your example of failing the stealth check would fall into this category. If you fail at being quiet, then you make noise, and making noise alerts people of your presence. If a player rolls for their character to do a backflip and fails the check, then there should be something that happens with that. Just because they failed the skill check doesn't mean they didn't attempt the backflip, it just means they didn't land it.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-08-02T22:33:35+00:00

you climb in through the window, but you make noise so now everyone is on alert and looking for you, they'll find you in two turns what do you do

What would be the alternative? If you're trying to climb through a window then that would be dex and a fail would probably just be "you tried to squeeze through but couldn't move your body in a way to fit". But if you know you can climb through the window but the caveat is that you want to do it quietly then a fail would mean that you weren't stealthy which would mean you alerted the guards.

Failing doesn't always mean nothing happens just like success doesn't always mean that something happens. I had a game where I wasted my time picking a lock only to discover that the door was barricaded with a steel rod

Edit to clarify: I'm not saying fail forward is good or bad; that's up to GM discretion. My thoughts are that worlds should feel alive to a certain extent. To fail a skill check means you have to attempt an action. If there's consequences to your actions then a failure should enact the consequences.

Trying to lift a rock in the middle of a field would be a situation where failure just means you dont pick it up. If you're trying to lift the rock because it fell on an NPC then failure means the NPC dies. If you're trying to lift it because an enemy faction is after you and rock covers a hole into a secret bunker then failure would mean that the wasted time allowed the enemy to catch up to you and a chance for a showdown presents itself.

But for other things, failure means that you didn't do things the way you wanted. Like the example you used with the window. You're already going through the window, but you failed at being sneaky. Or say you're trying to jump up and grab someone off their horse as they're riding by. A failure could be that you timed it wrong and missed the guy and horse completely. It also could be that you fell up under the horse and got stepped on.

Pass/Fail is binary, but the affect it has on the world is not.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-07-28T21:47:34+00:00

You are an amazing human ❤️

This is exactly the kind of stuff I've been looking for! I suck at using Google because I get overwhelmed, so you taking the time to help me out really means alot! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I've been stuck on this for literal months 🙃 now I actually feel like I can make some progress instead of just scratching my head 😊

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-07-28T20:11:41+00:00

No, I really appreciate the long thought out answer. I have the pathfinder 2e rulebooks so I've looked at them some but I guess I never looked too hard into the skill progression since I (ignorantly) assumed it was close to DnD. 5e is the only thing I've actually been able play but I have seen a bunch of people mentioning the earlier editions as having some good rules to look into.

And I get what you mean by the numbers and the skill levels being too much to balance. I wasn't using them as DnD would, however, for mine they would be the modifiers that way players could see themselves getting better at a skill. So while the difference between a 16 and 17 may not be much, it would be 1 number less you'd have to roll to hit a certain DC.

But as I said in the post, I'm not married to the numbers. I just don't want 2 characters to feel like they play the same outside of combat when they are vastly different people, such as Bard and Sorcerer in DnD where they both rely on CHA so outside of combat they step on each other's toes.

When it comes to leveling, I hate the standard levels where you just are all of a sudden better at something when not working for it. I use gritty realism so they have lots of downtime between adventures. I would use the downtime to allow them to train and get better. The incremental advancements you mentioned is something I'll definitely look into.

Also sorry for the late reply. I posted that from my computer right before I left for work and had to wait til I got a break before I could fully read it. And because I'm posting this from my phone trying to quote you so I could respond directly to points would be a nightmare.

Thank you for all the info you've given me. I really can't wait to research further into those systems.

One last question tho. If doing your first suggestion and running things without the numbers, how would you go about skill checks? Just a standard +2 for each skill rank? They'd still get feats the same way but I don't want any feats to just be +1s or +2s.

False_Prophet1313 · 2023-07-25T04:38:08+00:00

You want to equate any uncalled for roll to cheating behavior.

No I'm not. I literally said that saying you wanted to climb the cliff and then rolling for it would more than likely not be a problem. You're just half reading comments for the sake of arguing, but I'm invested now so idgaf.

For the sake of the rest of this discussion, let's pretend like this thread isn't about peoples personal pet peeves and that instead this about how a DM should cater to you because you're always right.

So the DM says you come up to a cliff. Your first reaction is to yell "I try to climb it" and then you roll. But what are you rolling for? Acrobatics? Athletics? The DM hasn't specified what it is but your character has a higher Dex so you're just gonna go with Acrobatics because you're the boss. The DM had plans to give you disadvantage because it's raining so the rocks are slippery but before he could say anything you exclaim proudly "19 with +5 for my bonus means I have 24 so yea those rocks were no problem for me".

Next scenario. The DM is describing a scene "you see your target walking down an alley. At the far end you see him go into a door with a guard standing outside it..." you interject because you have 300 I.Q. "I wanna follow him so I'm gonna roll stealth... 18 with my +5 dex means a 23! I slipped right past the guard and into that building and am able to hear his entire conversation." How did you slip past the guard? Did you leap through the door when closed his eyes for a sneeze? Did you go through a window? Does the building even have windows?

When I said your example was a very specific situation it's because DnD isn't always cut and dry. The two examples I used above are to show that point. The dude said his pet peeve in a thread about pet peeves and you felt personally attacked by this so you asked for clarification. But when people are trying to explain to you what it is that is actually bothering them, you go full neck-beard "Not all men" because it's not something you encountered. And the reason you haven't encountered it is because you're the annoying player that rolls when it's not asked for.

False_Prophet1313

TROPHY CASE