Target Number = 8

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

http://www.worldofdarkness.com/

"TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004

"Dice Rolling – One of the great things about the new Storytelling
System is how straightforward dice rolling is. For your character to do
something, you roll a number of 10-sided dice. That number – your dice
pool – is almost always equal to the relevant Attribute and Skill. When
your character shoots a gun, you add his Dexterity ••• to his Firearms
•• for a total of five dice – one die per dot. If any die comes up with
an 8 or more, you succeed. If not, you fail.

"The dice pool can be modified, of course. Special tools and favorable
conditions give you extra dice; poor conditions take them away. But 8
remains the magic number to succeed."

I have made a spiffy graphic to go with this. It is a chart.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/stephenls-dice_chart.jpg
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
70 answers Last reply
More about target number
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Here's something interesting (which I did not figure out myself). Look
    at it as "chance of failure" rather than "chance of success."

    1 die - 70%
    2 dice - 49%
    3 dice - 34%
    4 dice - 24%
    5 dice - 17%
    6 dice - 12%
    7 dice - 8%
    8 dice - 6%
    9 dice - 4%
    10 dice - 3%

    Subtracting two dice always roughly doubles your chance of failure, and
    adding two dice always roughly halves it. That makes figuring out
    appropriate penalties much simpler.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    > I have made a spiffy graphic to go with this. It is a chart.

    This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider spectrum
    in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.

    I compared it to the old systems...

    http://hd42.de/download/probabilities.pdf
    http://hd42.de/download/probabilities+1.pdf

    Daniel


    --

    my homepage : http://hd42.de

    'Life is wasted on the living' - Zaphod Beeblebrox the Fourth
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Il Wed, 26 May 2004 16:35:47 +0200, Daniel Hohenberger
    <nagash@hd42.de> ha scritto:

    >I compared it to the old systems...
    >
    >http://hd42.de/download/probabilities.pdf
    >http://hd42.de/download/probabilities+1.pdf

    how did you implement storytelling difficulty +1? by subtracting a
    dice?
    --
    i hope she fries
    i'm free if that bitch dies...
    ....i'd better help her out...
    Domon
    per rispondermi, togli il FILTRO!
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Domon wrote:
    > how did you implement storytelling difficulty +1? by subtracting a
    > dice?

    Yes. As that seems to be the only way to alter a roll's difficulty, as I
    read it from the text posted, I assumed this is what will happen.

    Daniel

    --

    my homepage : http://hd42.de

    'Life is wasted on the living' - Zaphod Beeblebrox the Fourth
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Il Wed, 26 May 2004 16:53:16 +0200, Daniel Hohenberger
    <nagash@hd42.de> ha scritto:

    >Yes. As that seems to be the only way to alter a roll's difficulty, as I
    >read it from the text posted, I assumed this is what will happen.

    ok. just to make sure.
    of course, AFAWK, maybe the base mechanic to alter difficulty is to
    add or subtract 2 dice at a time :)
    --
    i hope she fries
    i'm free if that bitch dies...
    ....i'd better help her out...
    Domon
    per rispondermi, togli il FILTRO!
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    nagash@hd42.de postulated:

    :: This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider
    :: spectrum in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.

    As a result I reamin dubious as to how well received this will be. The
    standard, and by your charts most likely system to succeed, ST1.0 system was
    bad enough for not succeeding and when difficulty was 8 it was invariably
    considered particularly difficult. This means that effectively *everything*
    in the new WoD is difficult to achieve unless you have a bucket of dice.
    Which boils down to the Storytelling System (at least this is what I assume)
    is threatening to walk in the territory of "loads of dice to roll". If we
    make something more difficult by subtracting dice then surely to make
    something easier we add dice? This means that simply having 10d10 might not
    be enough to play the game.

    Nimrod...
    --
    "It's not stupid - it's *advanced*." -- Almighty Tallest, 'Invader Zim'
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Nimrod Jones" <Nimrod_V01D@doleos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:2hk2lpFe4luhU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > nagash@hd42.de postulated:
    >
    > :: This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider
    > :: spectrum in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.
    >
    > As a result I reamin dubious as to how well received this will be. The
    > standard, and by your charts most likely system to succeed, ST1.0 system
    was
    > bad enough for not succeeding and when difficulty was 8 it was invariably
    > considered particularly difficult. This means that effectively
    *everything*
    > in the new WoD is difficult to achieve unless you have a bucket of dice.
    > Which boils down to the Storytelling System (at least this is what I
    assume)
    > is threatening to walk in the territory of "loads of dice to roll". If we
    > make something more difficult by subtracting dice then surely to make
    > something easier we add dice? This means that simply having 10d10 might
    not
    > be enough to play the game.

    This is nothing new to Exalted players. ;)

    *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven dice for
    damage*

    - David Prokopetz.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    > Subtracting two dice always roughly doubles your chance of failure, and
    > adding two dice always roughly halves it. That makes figuring out
    > appropriate penalties much simpler.

    That's cool. I'm looking forward to see if and how they'll grade success.

    Daniel

    --

    my homepage : http://hd42.de

    'Life is wasted on the living' - Zaphod Beeblebrox the Fourth
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Daniel Hohenberger wrote:

    > That's cool. I'm looking forward to see if and how they'll grade success.

    I'm working on a "chance of multiple successes" chart as I type this.
    Well, more accurately, I'm taking a break from working on a "chance of
    multiple successes" chart as I type this.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:2hk9k9Fdmv45U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Daniel Hohenberger wrote:
    >
    > > That's cool. I'm looking forward to see if and how they'll grade
    success.
    >
    > I'm working on a "chance of multiple successes" chart as I type this.
    > Well, more accurately, I'm taking a break from working on a "chance of
    > multiple successes" chart as I type this.

    Y'know, I wrote a C++ program that will kick out the necessary figures in
    one second flat, and put them in a nice HTML table for you, the sort you can
    copy-and-paste directly into MS Excel or OpenOffice - would you like me to
    fire it up?

    - David Prokopetz.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:

    > Y'know, I wrote a C++ program that will kick out the necessary figures in
    > one second flat, and put them in a nice HTML table for you, the sort you can
    > copy-and-paste directly into MS Excel or OpenOffice - would you like me to
    > fire it up?

    Bit late for that. Thanks, though.

    New chart is here:
    http://server5.uploadit.org/files/stephenls-probability_chart.jpg
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:2hkgtgFe7rt5U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > David Prokopetz wrote:
    >
    > > Y'know, I wrote a C++ program that will kick out the necessary figures
    in
    > > one second flat, and put them in a nice HTML table for you, the sort you
    can
    > > copy-and-paste directly into MS Excel or OpenOffice - would you like me
    to
    > > fire it up?
    >
    > Bit late for that. Thanks, though.

    Never mind, then. ;)

    > New chart is here:
    > http://server5.uploadit.org/files/stephenls-probability_chart.jpg

    Apropos of nothing, have you heard whether they're going to be using the
    "tens double" rule?

    - David Prokopetz.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:

    > Apropos of nothing, have you heard whether they're going to be using the
    > "tens double" rule?

    No, I haven't. We've only heard the very, very basic stuff about the
    dice mechanics. If there are dice tricks, like 10s counting twice or 1s
    subtracting successes or any other screwy bits, I'm sure we'll hear
    about them later.

    Personally I hope not, for the simple reason that I want my charts to
    remain valid.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:2hkhcfFe1t5uU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > David Prokopetz wrote:
    >
    > > Apropos of nothing, have you heard whether they're going to be using the
    > > "tens double" rule?
    >
    > No, I haven't. We've only heard the very, very basic stuff about the
    > dice mechanics. If there are dice tricks, like 10s counting twice or 1s
    > subtracting successes or any other screwy bits, I'm sure we'll hear
    > about them later.

    Well, I've heard that they're quite emphatically *not* going to be doing
    "ones cancel" - it was determined that the Rule of One was too much of a
    pain in the ass for the mechanical benefit it provided (i.e., not much).

    - David Prokopetz.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:

    > Well, I've heard that they're quite emphatically *not* going to be doing
    > "ones cancel" - it was determined that the Rule of One was too much of a
    > pain in the ass for the mechanical benefit it provided (i.e., not much).

    Well, yes. In fact, the Rule of One provides no mechanical benefit at
    all -- it just adjusts the base probabilities in a way that's difficult
    to calculate and that makes the odds really strange for no particular
    reason.

    The Rule of Ten does the same thing, really. If multiple successes
    aren't as important as they used to be, there's no real reason to
    implement it.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:2hkhs2FddivqU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > David Prokopetz wrote:
    >
    > > Well, I've heard that they're quite emphatically *not* going to be doing
    > > "ones cancel" - it was determined that the Rule of One was too much of a
    > > pain in the ass for the mechanical benefit it provided (i.e., not much).
    >
    > Well, yes. In fact, the Rule of One provides no mechanical benefit at
    > all -- it just adjusts the base probabilities in a way that's difficult
    > to calculate and that makes the odds really strange for no particular
    > reason.

    I actually ran some simulations on that one - the Rule of One *does* have
    the effect of smoothing the probability curve somewhat.

    - David Prokopetz.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:
    >
    > *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven dice for
    > damage*

    Ha.

    Just last week I rolled 85 dice of damage!

    --
    Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
    Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
    AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
    -- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Julie d'Aubigny" <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:40B51A0B.C9D6EE97@comcast.net...
    > David Prokopetz wrote:
    > >
    > > *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven dice
    for
    > > damage*
    >
    > Ha.
    >
    > Just last week I rolled 85 dice of damage!

    Well, we've only been playing for a few weeks - I don't think we have anyone
    above Essence 3 yet, nor has anyone spent more than perhaps 25 experience
    since we started. Give it time. ;)

    (Though if your experience is any indication of what's to come, I may have
    to stock up - I only *have* fifty-odd ten-siders.)

    - David Prokopetz.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    > Well, yes. In fact, the Rule of One provides no mechanical benefit at
    > all

    Well, it added botches to the success-spectrum's lower end. You don't
    just fail or succeed, as I belief you do in Storytelling System but have
    a degree of failure.
    And, as David noted, the curve for ST1.0 Dif.+1 (=7) is smoother than
    ST2.0 Std. Dif (7). For smoothness, that rule won't be needed with the
    raised difficulty of 8, but I wonder if they'll still have some way to
    botch as opposed to fail a roll.

    Daniel

    And I like to see that there now is a real chance of failure with 10
    dice (3%) instead of the near absolute success of 99,9% in ST1.0.

    --

    my homepage : http://hd42.de

    'Life is wasted on the living' - Zaphod Beeblebrox the Fourth
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Daniel Hohenberger" <nagash@hd42.de> wrote in message
    news:2hkk4aFe9uh0U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Stephenls wrote:
    > > Well, yes. In fact, the Rule of One provides no mechanical benefit at
    > > all
    >
    > Well, it added botches to the success-spectrum's lower end. You don't
    > just fail or succeed, as I belief you do in Storytelling System but have
    > a degree of failure.
    > And, as David noted, the curve for ST1.0 Dif.+1 (=7) is smoother than
    > ST2.0 Std. Dif (7). For smoothness, that rule won't be needed with the
    > raised difficulty of 8, but I wonder if they'll still have some way to
    > botch as opposed to fail a roll.

    Sure there is - score zero successes and have at least one "1" showing;
    that's how Exalted does it, anyway.

    - David Prokopetz.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 May 2004 00:30:44 +0200, Daniel Hohenberger
    <nagash@hd42.de> wrote:

    >For smoothness, that rule won't be needed with the
    >raised difficulty of 8, but I wonder if they'll still have some way to
    >botch as opposed to fail a roll.

    I just thought of a good way to do it, which will make sense (lower
    dice pool = more likely to botch): Get a straight without getting any
    successes.

    Hmm, actually that only works if the PC has 2 or more dice in the
    pool... I still like it but it doesn't allow for a 1-dice pool to
    botch.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    David Prokopetz wrote:
    >
    > "Julie d'Aubigny" <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:40B51A0B.C9D6EE97@comcast.net...
    > > David Prokopetz wrote:
    > > >
    > > > *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven dice
    > for
    > > > damage*
    > >
    > > Ha.
    > >
    > > Just last week I rolled 85 dice of damage!
    >
    > Well, we've only been playing for a few weeks - I don't think we have anyone
    > above Essence 3 yet, nor has anyone spent more than perhaps 25 experience
    > since we started. Give it time. ;)
    >
    > (Though if your experience is any indication of what's to come, I may have
    > to stock up - I only *have* fifty-odd ten-siders.)

    I have sixty for ST games. They're usually sufficient.

    --
    Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
    Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
    AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
    -- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:28:05 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
    <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

    >David Prokopetz wrote:
    >>
    >> *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven dice for
    >> damage*
    >
    >Ha.
    >
    >Just last week I rolled 85 dice of damage!

    Could you explain how ?

    Guillaume
    (Still trying to learn cool charms use)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    sirbob@penguinking.com postulated:

    :: This is nothing new to Exalted players. ;)
    ::
    :: *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven
    :: dice for damage*

    Yes, but while this has become commonplace in Exalted I'm not sure I like
    the idea of the new WoD being dependent on stupidly massive dicepools. As
    much as I like Exalted I think the size of the dicepools sometimes border on
    a big practical joke on the part of WW. I have no desire to see the WoD
    become a matter of needing upward of 20 or 60 d10 in your bag to scatter
    across the table to rain onto the floor. The time saved in rolling attack
    and damage as a single roll will become redundant to the time spent counting
    all the bloody successes. In university we played Vampire with only maybe 5
    d10 between the lot of us. Any rolls requiring more than 5 dice we had to
    reroll and remember. The fact that it was rare for a dicepool to get much
    bigger than 10 in 2nd Ed meant that this was possible, but a game that
    "needs" a bucket of dice becomes just as cumbersome to play, IMHO, as a game
    that requires each kind of sided dice (possibly even including d30s).
    Exalted can kind of get away with that many dice because it's within the
    spirit of the game. I don't believe that 37 or 85 dice is in the spirit of
    the World of Darkness, no matter how much of a revision it's getting.

    Of course, I'm ranting here with under an assumption that I hope will be
    false.

    Nimrod...
    --
    The Wise One has spoken words in the hall,
    Needful for men to know,
    Unneedful for trolls to know
    -- from the Hávamál
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:

    > http://server5.uploadit.org/files/stephenls-probability_chart.jpg

    I've been looking at this chart, because I'm vain and enjoy admiring my
    own work.

    While the dice exibit a diminishing returns effect when it comes to
    one's chance of getting 1 success, the 2 and 3 success progressions are
    much straighter. If the system for the new WoD takes multiple degrees
    of success into account (and it should, if only because the attack roll
    is now the damage roll), increasing skill is worth it for a nearly
    uniform increase in one's chance of getting multiple successes.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Daniel Hohenberger wrote:
    >
    > Stephenls wrote:
    > > I have made a spiffy graphic to go with this. It is a chart.
    >
    > This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider spectrum
    > in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.

    Right, so since bonuses and penalties in WoD 2.0 affect the size of
    your dice pool, this makes that alteration matter (more) in terms of
    your chances of success.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Alex wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 May 2004 00:30:44 +0200, Daniel Hohenberger
    > <nagash@hd42.de> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>For smoothness, that rule won't be needed with the
    >>raised difficulty of 8, but I wonder if they'll still have some way to
    >>botch as opposed to fail a roll.
    >
    >
    > I just thought of a good way to do it, which will make sense (lower
    > dice pool = more likely to botch): Get a straight without getting any
    > successes.
    >
    > Hmm, actually that only works if the PC has 2 or more dice in the
    > pool... I still like it but it doesn't allow for a 1-dice pool to
    > botch.

    I like the current system (no successes + a 1 = botch). See, I have no
    problem with most of a master's failures being botches while most
    incompetents just fail. When you screw up at something you can easily
    do, its probably because you or someone else did something really,
    really stupid.

    William
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Guillaume JAY wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:28:05 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
    > <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > >David Prokopetz wrote:
    > >>
    > >> *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven dice for
    > >> damage*
    > >
    > >Ha.
    > >
    > >Just last week I rolled 85 dice of damage!
    >
    > Could you explain how ?

    In a way that I'm not sure is legal - I split four attacks with an
    infinite jade chakram, and my ST was like "Each attack splits into five
    attacks!" so I ended up doing a lot of damage via 20 chakram attacks.

    For context, my character *is* an Air Dragon Immaculate.

    --
    Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
    Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
    AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
    -- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Nimrod Jones wrote:
    >
    > sirbob@penguinking.com postulated:
    >
    > :: This is nothing new to Exalted players. ;)
    > ::
    > :: *recalls the time one of his players ended up rolling thirty-seven
    > :: dice for damage*
    >
    > Yes, but while this has become commonplace in Exalted I'm not sure I like
    > the idea of the new WoD being dependent on stupidly massive dicepools. As
    > much as I like Exalted I think the size of the dicepools sometimes border on
    > a big practical joke on the part of WW.

    Have you played Exalted, incidentally?

    It doesn't take long to count the successes at all.

    Incidentally, I doubt that WoD 2.0 will be relying on the kind of
    dicepools you see in Exalted.

    --
    Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
    Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
    AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
    -- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephenls" <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:2hnb31Fev7nkU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Stephenls wrote:
    >
    > > http://server5.uploadit.org/files/stephenls-probability_chart.jpg
    >
    > I've been looking at this chart, because I'm vain and enjoy admiring my
    > own work.

    And it's a very pretty chart.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    William wrote:

    > I like the current system (no successes + a 1 = botch). See, I have no
    > problem with most of a master's failures being botches while most
    > incompetents just fail. When you screw up at something you can easily
    > do, its probably because you or someone else did something really,
    > really stupid.

    I like the old system too, although it is a lot of dice rolling in a
    round of combat. That's probably typical of all "dice pool" systems
    though.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Stephen Williams wrote:
    > I like the old system too, although it is a lot of dice rolling in a
    > round of combat. That's probably typical of all "dice pool" systems
    > though.

    Except Godlike.

    --
    J. H. Frank
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Il Thu, 27 May 2004 22:19:31 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
    <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> ha scritto:

    >In a way that I'm not sure is legal - I split four attacks with an
    >infinite jade chakram, and my ST was like "Each attack splits into five
    >attacks!" so I ended up doing a lot of damage via 20 chakram attacks.
    >
    >For context, my character *is* an Air Dragon Immaculate.

    power combat ping?
    --
    i hope she fries
    i'm free if that bitch dies...
    ....i'd better help her out...
    Domon
    per rispondermi, togli il FILTRO!
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    kali.magdalene@comcast.net postulated:

    :: Have you played Exalted, incidentally?

    Yes.

    :: It doesn't take long to count the successes at all.

    It can still take longer than counting successes in WoD.

    :: Incidentally, I doubt that WoD 2.0 will be relying on the kind of
    :: dicepools you see in Exalted.

    Indeed, that's what I'm hoping. I think it would be a mistake for it to do
    so. As I said, large dicepools are kind of in keeping with Exalted so it's
    okay in that game... :-)

    Nimrod...
    --
    "I got head explody!" -- JTHM
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    frankjoh@pilot.msu.edu postulated:

    :: Stephen Williams wrote:
    ::: I like the old system too, although it is a lot of dice rolling in a
    ::: round of combat. That's probably typical of all "dice pool" systems
    ::: though.
    ::
    :: Except Godlike.

    I really like the Godlike system. Am I the only one because it seems that
    way sometimes.

    Nimrod...
    --
    "It's not stupid - it's *advanced*." -- Almighty Tallest, 'Invader Zim'
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Nimrod Jones wrote:
    > I really like the Godlike system. Am I the only one because it seems that
    > way sometimes.

    I'm pretty sure you're not. I like the system, but mostly because Greg
    Stolze has been kind enough in the past to explain the various wonky things
    that ORE does and expects. Tranparency/handholding is good thing in RPGs.
    I'm looking in a certain freelancer's direction. *cough cough*

    --
    J. H. Frank
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    J. H. Frank wrote:
    > Nimrod Jones wrote:
    >
    >>I really like the Godlike system. Am I the only one because it seems that
    >>way sometimes.
    >
    >
    > I'm pretty sure you're not. I like the system, but mostly because Greg
    > Stolze has been kind enough in the past to explain the various wonky things
    > that ORE does and expects. Tranparency/handholding is good thing in RPGs.
    > I'm looking in a certain freelancer's direction. *cough cough*
    >
    > --
    > J. H. Frank
    >
    >

    I love Godlike as a resolution system, but not as a character
    building/campaign system. However, since characters aren't expected to
    last more than a few sessions, that isn't a fatal flaw for the game :)

    William
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "William" <wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote in message
    news:2hq1e2Ff8mc0U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > J. H. Frank wrote:
    > > Nimrod Jones wrote:
    > >
    > >>I really like the Godlike system. Am I the only one because it seems
    that
    > >>way sometimes.
    > >
    > >
    > > I'm pretty sure you're not. I like the system, but mostly because Greg
    > > Stolze has been kind enough in the past to explain the various wonky
    things
    > > that ORE does and expects. Tranparency/handholding is good thing in
    RPGs.
    > > I'm looking in a certain freelancer's direction. *cough cough*
    > >
    > > --
    > > J. H. Frank
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I love Godlike as a resolution system, but not as a character
    > building/campaign system. However, since characters aren't expected to
    > last more than a few sessions, that isn't a fatal flaw for the game :)

    I read some of Godlike's IC fiction once - IIRC, it was about a really,
    really elderly "Invincible Man"-type talking about how all of his
    super-powered friends and assciates got killed in nasty ways, usually in
    situations they were thrown into deliberately so that some
    politically-motivated officer could score points with his superiors.

    It was still more optimistic than most of the WoD stuff, tho'. ;)

    - David Prokopetz.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    frankjoh@pilot.msu.edu postulated:

    :: I'm pretty sure you're not. I like the system, but mostly because
    :: Greg Stolze has been kind enough in the past to explain the various
    :: wonky things that ORE does and expects. Tranparency/handholding is
    :: good thing in RPGs. I'm looking in a certain freelancer's direction.
    :: *cough cough*

    I heard that the system was being applied to two other games. One of which
    was a mecha-Cthulhu game. Any news on those? I forget what they were called.
    Also, it's been a while, but any news on "Wild Talents"?

    Nimrod...
    --
    "I kill Gandalf!" -- Dork Tower
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Nimrod Jones wrote:

    > I heard that the system was being applied to two other games. One of which
    > was a mecha-Cthulhu game. Any news on those? I forget what they were called.
    > Also, it's been a while, but any news on "Wild Talents"?

    That deal fell through / was thought better of / whatever. Cthulhutech
    and Weapons of the Gods won't be using ORE -- they're using a new system
    which I believe is called Framewerk. I don't know any of the mechanical
    details, but I do know that the setting chapter of Weapons of the Gods
    is being written by Rebecca Borgstrom, so I have to buy it. Which will
    give me an excuse to check out Framewerk.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    stephenls@shaw.ca postulated:

    :: That deal fell through / was thought better of / whatever.
    :: Cthulhutech and Weapons of the Gods won't be using ORE -- they're
    :: using a new system which I believe is called Framewerk. I don't
    :: know any of the mechanical details, but I do know that the setting
    :: chapter of Weapons of the Gods is being written by Rebecca
    :: Borgstrom, so I have to buy it. Which will give me an excuse to
    :: check out Framewerk. --

    That's a shame, would have been interested to see how the system worked with
    a different setting. Any word on what type of system this Framewerk is or do
    we only know the name?

    Nimrod...
    --
    "I'm going to sing the Doom Song now." -- G.I.R., 'Invader Zim'
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Nimrod Jones wrote:

    > That's a shame, would have been interested to see how the system worked with
    > a different setting. Any word on what type of system this Framewerk is or do
    > we only know the name?

    There's a huge-ass Weapons of the Gods thread over on RPG.net...

    http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119222

    ....and I'm sure they get to system talk at some point, seeing as it's
    300+ posts long. I haven't read it all, though, so /I/ don't know
    anything about the system.
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Nimrod Jones wrote:

    > nagash@hd42.de postulated:
    >
    > :: This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider
    > :: spectrum in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.
    >
    > As a result I reamin dubious as to how well received this will be. The
    > standard, and by your charts most likely system to succeed, ST1.0 system was
    > bad enough for not succeeding and when difficulty was 8 it was invariably
    > considered particularly difficult. This means that effectively *everything*
    > in the new WoD is difficult to achieve unless you have a bucket of dice.
    > Which boils down to the Storytelling System (at least this is what I assume)
    > is threatening to walk in the territory of "loads of dice to roll". If we
    > make something more difficult by subtracting dice then surely to make
    > something easier we add dice? This means that simply having 10d10 might not
    > be enough to play the game.
    >
    > Nimrod...


    With 7 to 10 dice there is hardly any substantial increase in probability that
    you'll succeed. And given that the system just about always needs just one
    success to succeed I give it a fair chance they'll put in the well known rule of
    'of you exceed x amount of dice you can claim a success without rolling'.


    Michael Dracon
    Ex Libris Nocturnis Forum Moderator
    http://www.nocturnis.net

    "Maybe there is just a lot of full moons out there, somewhere,
    lined up, beaming bozo rays into everybody's brains."
    - Zack Allen, Babylon 5

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/members/michaeldracon
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    Michael Dracon wrote:

    > With 7 to 10 dice there is hardly any substantial increase in probability that
    > you'll succeed. And given that the system just about always needs just one
    > success to succeed I give it a fair chance they'll put in the well known rule of
    > 'of you exceed x amount of dice you can claim a success without rolling'.

    Well, if it turns out difficulty 8 is too hard to hit on a regular
    basis, you (as the ST) can always just lower the target number. (For
    all rolls, I mean, not just one or two.)
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    >
    > Ha.
    >
    > Just last week I rolled 85 dice of damage!

    Wow. My tabletop Solars must be weaklings, then. I only saw die pools in
    the 20's. How did you achieve that, Di?

    CB
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Stephen Williams" <steve1.williams@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    news:40B882B5.A3954D14@sympatico.ca...
    > Michael Dracon wrote:
    >
    > > With 7 to 10 dice there is hardly any substantial increase in
    probability that
    > > you'll succeed. And given that the system just about always needs just
    one
    > > success to succeed I give it a fair chance they'll put in the well known
    rule of
    > > 'of you exceed x amount of dice you can claim a success without
    rolling'.
    >
    > Well, if it turns out difficulty 8 is too hard to hit on a regular
    > basis, you (as the ST) can always just lower the target number. (For
    > all rolls, I mean, not just one or two.)

    This is one of the reasons I much preferred using GURPS for Vampire. The
    single 3D6 roll for skill task resolution and generally much lower dice
    pools made things much more manageable for me, personally. The only fatal
    flaw was the fact that GURPS Chargen took like a month to do. It was an
    utter inversion of standard Vampire - wonky dice rules, 5 minute Chargen.
    My players hated GURPS Chargen, so for most of my Vampire career I stuck
    with Storyteller mechanics.

    CB
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Nimrod Jones" <Nimrod_V01D@doleos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2hk2lpFe4luhU1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > nagash@hd42.de postulated:
    >
    > :: This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider
    > :: spectrum in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.
    >
    > As a result I reamin dubious as to how well received this will be. The
    > standard, and by your charts most likely system to succeed, ST1.0 system was
    > bad enough for not succeeding and when difficulty was 8 it was invariably
    > considered particularly difficult. This means that effectively *everything*
    > in the new WoD is difficult to achieve unless you have a bucket of dice.
    > Which boils down to the Storytelling System (at least this is what I assume)
    > is threatening to walk in the territory of "loads of dice to roll". If we
    > make something more difficult by subtracting dice then surely to make
    > something easier we add dice? This means that simply having 10d10 might not
    > be enough to play the game.
    >
    > Nimrod...

    I don't see that as much of a problem...

    I'm more worried about what happens at the lower end. A character with
    only two dice in a skill only has about a 50/50 shot at doing
    something. Now, granted, that's not approaching "Unknown Armies"
    level of incompetence during terror, but I don't think that it would
    work for "non-scared" rolls.

    I'd probably solve this simply by adding a one die bonus onto any
    situation where the characters weren't terrified out of their wits -
    OR by saying that the target number is 6 for non-scary conditions.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    "Funksaw" <funksaw@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
    news:417bedbe.0406052012.4f9aca55@posting.google.com...
    > "Nimrod Jones" <Nimrod_V01D@doleos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:<2hk2lpFe4luhU1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > > nagash@hd42.de postulated:
    > >
    > > :: This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider
    > > :: spectrum in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.
    > >
    > > As a result I reamin dubious as to how well received this will be. The
    > > standard, and by your charts most likely system to succeed, ST1.0 system
    was
    > > bad enough for not succeeding and when difficulty was 8 it was
    invariably
    > > considered particularly difficult. This means that effectively
    *everything*
    > > in the new WoD is difficult to achieve unless you have a bucket of dice.
    > > Which boils down to the Storytelling System (at least this is what I
    assume)
    > > is threatening to walk in the territory of "loads of dice to roll". If
    we
    > > make something more difficult by subtracting dice then surely to make
    > > something easier we add dice? This means that simply having 10d10 might
    not
    > > be enough to play the game.
    > >
    > > Nimrod...
    >
    > I don't see that as much of a problem...
    >
    > I'm more worried about what happens at the lower end. A character with
    > only two dice in a skill only has about a 50/50 shot at doing
    > something. Now, granted, that's not approaching "Unknown Armies"
    > level of incompetence during terror, but I don't think that it would
    > work for "non-scared" rolls.
    >
    > I'd probably solve this simply by adding a one die bonus onto any
    > situation where the characters weren't terrified out of their wits -
    > OR by saying that the target number is 6 for non-scary conditions.

    Just take a page from the d20 system - if the dice say you've got at least a
    50% chance of success, you automatically succeed under non-stressful
    conditions.

    - David Prokopetz.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

    On 5 Jun 2004 21:12:32 -0700, funksaw@linuxmail.org (Funksaw) wrote:

    >"Nimrod Jones" <Nimrod_V01D@doleos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2hk2lpFe4luhU1@uni-berlin.de>...
    >> nagash@hd42.de postulated:
    >>
    >> :: This means that overall success is harder, but we see a wider
    >> :: spectrum in chance of success for 1 to 10 dice.
    >>
    >> As a result I reamin dubious as to how well received this will be. The
    >> standard, and by your charts most likely system to succeed, ST1.0 system was
    >> bad enough for not succeeding and when difficulty was 8 it was invariably
    >> considered particularly difficult. This means that effectively *everything*
    >> in the new WoD is difficult to achieve unless you have a bucket of dice.
    >> Which boils down to the Storytelling System (at least this is what I assume)
    >> is threatening to walk in the territory of "loads of dice to roll". If we
    >> make something more difficult by subtracting dice then surely to make
    >> something easier we add dice? This means that simply having 10d10 might not
    >> be enough to play the game.
    >>
    >> Nimrod...
    >
    >I don't see that as much of a problem...
    >
    >I'm more worried about what happens at the lower end. A character with
    >only two dice in a skill only has about a 50/50 shot at doing
    >something. Now, granted, that's not approaching "Unknown Armies"
    >level of incompetence during terror, but I don't think that it would
    >work for "non-scared" rolls.

    Yeah, it is a concern. I'm hoping that we have lots of modifiers that
    come in to make things easier. That encourages planning, which
    encourages thought, which encourages roleplaying, which encourages me.

    (snipped a bit about default modifiers).

    That's probably the way I'll go as well. I'm pretty sure that if you
    start out as mortals, though, average actions will be relatively easy
    or the system will have nice effects like making it impossible for
    anyone who isn't a professional athlete to successfully run for a bus,
    or anyone who isn't a top chef to make this very nice chicken and
    avocado salad I've just made and am currently dropping over everything
    in a 5 foot radius. I think I just botched my 'Eat Food' roll.

    Cheers,

    Charlie
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games