Topic: 3d6

[Marrethiel]

This quote got me thinking about a few things. You could say these thoughts and words are blasphemous, but oh well

Characters rarely parried in most of my games.

Combat was so swingy that many felt that a good offense was better than a good defense, much like what the OP said. Really, is another 30 points of defense going to help you when your attacker rolls a 97 + 68? He's pretty much assured to max out the chart. Far better, in many characters' minds, to stun your attacker and stop him from getting that attack altogether.

It would be an interesting experiment, though, to crunch some numbers on this. What are the odds that parrying will be better than trying to knock your opponent out via a stun or kill? I would like to see those numbers.

I've been looking at recruiting a few new roleplayers to RM but would like to reduce some of the crunchiness and modify the extremely random crts some what.

If I divide all the numbers in RM by 5 and used 3d6 instead of percentile, what would happen?

Crits would gravitate near the centre, which would reduce the annoying 01 and very lethal 100. ( I so hate rolling up on a surprise attack, then rolling 03 for the crit).
Positional combat modifiers might be more attractive.
Parrying might happen less but when it is used be more effective.
Caster level for base attack spells would probably matter more as it would be difficult to get a high roll (again, speding time to get a few modifiers would be more imprtant).
Would heavy armour suddenly be used again? I think it would be more powerful but this could easily be managed by actually using exhaustion penalties.
Smaller numbers would be easier for people to do math on the fly. I cringe when I see new players (and some old ones) reach for a calculator.

[Cory Magel]

We just used Fate Points.   All the crunch is still there, you just have a little padding in the way.

[gandalf970]

With that said, I would always remind your players that combat is brutal and not to be entered into lightly.  I have seen too many players state they love the combat of Rolemaster, but that quickly turns to complaints when it is extricated against them. 

Fate points is a good option for padding the results.

[intothatdarkness]

+1 for fate points.

[jdale]

We're doing fate points too.

On the original idea, optimally you would use two d8 dice numbered 0-7, and one d6 numbered 1-6 (standard). That would give you a range of 1-20, with a mean of 10.5. So, the same range as d20 but on a bell curve. With 3d6, you have a range of 3-18 so a lot of UM results on the tables are not merely going to be rare, they are impossible. E.g. you simply cannot fumble.

If you numbered the d6 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and the d8's 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, you can use standard tables. Doesn't solve the math issue but does change the probabilities. You can't roll below 5 so you have to treat 5 as your fumble and open-ended down.

[Hurin]

I myself have thought of playing RM with a bell curve several times, mostly to eliminate the swinginess. But Marrethiel's post has also now made me think about the way that could make parrying and armor more useful.

Note that RMU has had some issues of the sort you identify, Marrethiel, in regards to base attack rolls. If you're interested in the numbers, there are a couple of threads I think in the RMU spell law forum that talk about that. Edit: clarification: I mean specifically the issue of spell attacks being more likely to be almost impossible to resist or trivial to resist on the ends of the spectrum.

If you are going to try this, though, I think you should avoid 3D6. I think there are easier ways to roll the numbers (Edit: Jdale has covered some of this, so my comments are just an addendum), and 3D6 is inherently hard to convert to percentile, as you've noted (no 1s, 2s, 19s or 20s). If you have a calculator and don't mind using that rather than rolling dice, I'm sure that you could easily set up a program to get a bell curve on it (e.g. 3d100/3). You might even want to start with a bit less of a bell-- say 2d100/2-- to see how much of a bell you want.

If calculators won't fly and you need to roll dice, there are a few things you could do to get a percentile bell, though these involve more calculations and again you will most likely run into the problem of no fumbles/open ends. Average 3d10 and multiply by 10, for example. Or 2d100/2.

I'm not math person, though, so I'm sure there are people here who have better suggestions. I think as an experiment, the calculator/random number generator is the way to go. I know there are dice rolling programs for the D20, and perhaps they could be modified so that people can actually have the sense of rolling dice by using these programs on their cellphones or tablets.

I'm interested to see what the results would be. It will of course not be a long-term solution I think for Rolemaster, since the percentile dice are part of the identity of the system. But I for one would love to see the results.

[Hurin]

Oh, just thought of a simpler solution that might be better for the math-averse. This is based on the advantage/disadvantage mechanic used in the new edition of DnD:

--Roll two separate percentile rolls, and use the one closest to 50.

[darb]

You would have GURPS, which is no bad thing IMO.  The systems are different but have some similar flavor for me. I tried to put together a sort of mashup system at one time but lost it.  I just wish I was motivated enough to do a GURPS version for 3D12, to get a bit more granularity in the resolution system, a bit more like RM

[jdale]

Mathematically, that works, but it feels unsatisfying. You are always going to be saying, "I wish I could use this 96!" (Mathematically, middle of three 1d100 rolls is 50.5 with a standard deviation of 22.47, which gives you a nice curve: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+50.5+standard+deviation+22.47.)

My solution, though weird, gives a standard deviation of 3.66 according to http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1d6+%2B+2d8, it's slightly narrower compared to the range. The only downside is the loss of resolution, although in exchange you get easier math.

If you wanted the resolution, the best thing I can think of is 4d30-5. Or maybe have modified percentile dice to roll 1-50 so you can do 2d50. Either of those requires more adding, rather than less. I'm still solving it with fate points instead....

[markc]

Or you could just have a program do the roll for you and you can shift the various factors as you wish.
MDC

[Malim]

3d6 ... I miss GURPS!

[Marrethiel]

as far as fumbles and open enders, a roll of 3 to 5 and 16 to 18 is around five percent. These could be the new open ender probablities. Or a roll of 6 on an indivual dice is rolled again; this could work better for crits.
I could just do small, medium, large, chain (flails etc) for fumbles on 3 (0.5%), 4 (2%), 5 (3%) and 3 to 5 (5%). Keeping these rolls with in the normal fumble range would make it fit neater into the normal fumble ranges.

I'm more concerned about various modifiers, altho this could be agood thing. Situationslike flank, stunned and prone give a bonus and I feel that these might be more poweful as it helps get to the top of the chart.

[Merkir]

We use Fate points too.

[markc]

Why do you want to reduce the range? If you do that you cannot have modifiers that are not multiples of 5% or 1 on 3d6.
MDC

[Marrethiel]

Why do you want to reduce the range? If you do that you cannot have modifiers that are not multiples of 5% or 1 on 3d6.
MDC

I can't think of many modifiers that are smaller than 5% but I've not had a close look at say the Base Spells attack table to see if that can neatly be divided up.

I might get our normal group to play test it this weekend and report back.

[markc]

IIRC, there are mods less than than that, that were introduced in the RM2 Elemental Companion. Take a look at the elemental forge info towards the back of the book.
MDC

[markc]

  I am very interested in why people want to reduce the range? Is it a math problem for your players? Is it a way to try and convert RM to another system or another system to RM?
  For me if I wan to play Pathfinder, GURPs, Shadowrun or D&D I will just do that, I prefer the granularity of the D100 range to give me the flexibility I need to run my game. I am not a fan in any way of simple systems, ie +1 gun or even +1 weapon, is all there is in a system. Give me options to use in my stories not generic stuff.

[Cory Magel]

Most of the complaints you hear about RM are obviously made by people that obviously don't know the system well.  One of the complaints I used to hear from anti RM people is that the d100 created too much math.  This always makes me roll my eyes and I usually say "So you have a hard time figuring out a three digit number compared to a two digit number?"  Also, only someone who has never actually played RM would think that you actually have less items to add up in D&D.

With the increase in complexity in the D&D system over the years, each time getting a little more like RM if you ask me (and there are some well known people that wrote for D&D that used to write for RM), to the point that I don't think D&D can claim to be such simpler anymore.  As a result I often describe the new D&D as "RM divided by 5".  We'll see what the new one is like... maybe they'll have gone back more to their roots.

[markc]

I have seen the free D&D 5.0 play-test doc and it looks like D&D 4.0, now it may change with the players handbook and other guides but it looks very close to 4.0, IMHO.
MDC

[intothatdarkness]

Never saw the problem with RM and 2d10/d100 myself. Most things are divisible by 5 or 10, you only need one type of dice (and only two of them to boot), small atmospheric modifiers are easy to use without throwing off game balance... What's not to like?