Target Number = 8

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[DoMon]

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!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[DoMon]

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!

 

[Guest]

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'

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[alex]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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)

 

[Guest]

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