Preferred damage distributions

[flatline]

How predictable do you like your weapon damage to be?

Is having a decent chance at rolling a high damage worth the risk of also having a decent chance of rolling a low damage?

--flatline

[Mack]

Part of the fun is the large variation. It adds to the drama in the game.

Now if I actually lived in Rifts, I'd rather not risk my life like that. I'd want a very predictable outcome.

[Giant2005]

I prefer as little variation as I can reasonably have.
The dice don't love me.

[Shark_Force]

heh, i actually prefer a fourth option... if the goal is for average 35 damage, 1d6x10 feels too wide a range, 10d6 feels like too much hassle to be doing a lot, 35 is just not random enough...

so i'd go with something like 3d6+25

[Morik]

The joy for rolling that 6 for a 1d6x10 damage is worth any 1's rolled. I love a huge risk vs. reward in my games and my players do as well. It ultimately speeds up combat as well.

The constant 35 damage really takes away from the "chaos of battle" feel of encounters and 10d6 takes to long to total.

[flatline]

The joy for rolling that 6 for a 1d6x10 damage is worth any 1's rolled. I love a huge risk vs. reward in my games and my players do as well. It ultimately speeds up combat as well.

The constant 35 damage really takes away from the "chaos of battle" feel of encounters and 10d6 takes to long to total.

If adding up all the dice takes too long, perhaps you would benefit from a dice rolling program.

Here's a method written in python that I use when simulating stuff. You could put whatever pretty interface you want on top of it.

Code: Select all

import random
def d(count=1, sides=6, multiplier=1, bonus=0):
    total = 0
    for i in range(count):
        total += random.randint(1, sides)
    return (total * multiplier) + bonus

Maybe some day I'll write a parser so that I can simply write "7d6" or "1d6x10+20" instead of d(7,6) or d(1,6,10,20). respectively.

--flatline

[Shark_Force]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

[wyrmraker]

As someone who has played GURPS Supers as well as D6 Star Wars, I can honestly say that rolling 10 or more dice is a royal pain.

[mobuttu]

1d6x10 is more consistant to the rest of the game.

[Zer0 Kay]

As someone who has played GURPS Supers as well as D6 Star Wars, I can honestly say that rolling 10 or more dice is a royal pain.

Could be worse you could be playing a group of Harlequins in WH40K 3rd or earlier editions. 32 d 6 anyone?

[Morik]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

[flatline]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

I always have my calculator (HP 48G) and will often have it programmed with the appropriate die combinations so that I don't have to pause in my thinking. Just hit the button and get the result instantly.

--flatline

[Morik]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

I always have my calculator (HP 48G) and will often have it programmed with the appropriate die combinations so that I don't have to pause in my thinking. Just hit the button and get the result instantly.

--flatline

Seems less fun to me.

[flatline]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

I always have my calculator (HP 48G) and will often have it programmed with the appropriate die combinations so that I don't have to pause in my thinking. Just hit the button and get the result instantly.

--flatline

Seems less fun to me.

I got into the habit when playing the old Westend StarWars. I can sum up to 6d6 in a glance, but any more than that and I actually have to think about it. StarWars was a pretty fast moving game for us and so we all ended up using our calculators to not get bogged down summing up large numbers of dice.

But now that the little man is in kindergarden, part of the fascination he has with games is playing with the dice, so no dice rollers for now.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I prefer a steady amount of damage because, well, I think it's best to think like my character. What would he want? reliability.

[dragonfett]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

Because many pen and paper games are no longer happening over a real tabletop anymore but rather a virtual one or just over a video conference connection (Skype, G+ Hangouts, etc.) or in chat rooms. So in these cases a laptop/desktop is the only solution.

[Svartalf]

When I play by post, I still roll physical dice, if only because I don't like the notion of installing a dice roller on my comp.

[13eowulf]

When I play by post, I still roll physical dice, if only because I don't like the notion of installing a dice roller on my comp.

I game on the Palladium Chats mostly these days, and the dice roller is built into the chat, it works well enough.

As to the OP, I prefer a large variation.

[Alrik Vas]

I've never had good luck with dice roller programs, personally...well, unless i was rolling stats. They love me then. Though if i tell me GM to roll for me (and they're honest) the roller ususally gets the job done in a very spectacular way.

[Razzinold]

One thing I find with the variation (even though I voted for it) is I find some people who play, both old players and new (but mostly new), always ask how is it possible for their Wilks Remi (3D6) to do 6 points (I rolled a 3, 2, 1) of damage one attack and another attack it does 14 points (5, 4, 5) of damage. Please note that for the sake of this argument I actually rolled my dice and got those numbers in that order.

I'm curious, what is your take on this, as a player how has your GM explained this variation to you and GM's how did you explain it to your players?
Did you just say "because the book says so", or something like "because you grazed him, or didn't hit him anywhere vital" (but that then opens up the whole issue of not having a proper break down on hit locations, lol)

[Svartalf]

Yeah, it has to do with where you hit, grazing hit or full on and all variables that can spoil a perfect (or not so perfect) shot

[flatline]

Yeah, it has to do with where you hit, grazing hit or full on and all variables that can spoil a perfect (or not so perfect) shot

So if I roll a natural 20 to hit and then roll a 3 on 3d6, you'd say I grazed my target?

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I sure as hell wouldn't say that. As much as i'd prefer a static damage, rolling it is better overall. The results are uncertain until the dice stop, and that's just part of the fun.

To answer Razz, I have to apologize, because I don't see much reason other than game mechanics, as in this game we can pick our shots and to-hit-rolls often dictate different than damage.

[Razzinold]

I sure as hell wouldn't say that. As much as i'd prefer a static damage, rolling it is better overall. The results are uncertain until the dice stop, and that's just part of the fun.

To answer Razz, I have to apologize, because I don't see much reason other than game mechanics, as in this game we can pick our shots and to-hit-rolls often dictate different than damage.

I've given both answers to players. I've said it's the game mechanics and I've given creative reasons like your weapon malfunctioned slightly, you did the same amount of damage but the armour is thicker so less damage is taken off. Luckily the group I've played with has played so long it never comes up at this point it's just another step in the game.

Should be interesting the first time my daughter gets into combat (this is her first time ever playing).

[Svartalf]

Yeah, it has to do with where you hit, grazing hit or full on and all variables that can spoil a perfect (or not so perfect) shot

So if I roll a natural 20 to hit and then roll a 3 on 3d6, you'd say I grazed my target?

--flatline

You just managed to hit full on a bit of armor that was particularly thick, or slanted the wrong way.

[42dragon]

So if I roll a natural 20 to hit and then roll a 3 on 3d6, you'd say I grazed my target?

--flatline

To counter act that possibility that always drove me nuts, in my games.

Any natural roll of 1 misses, back-fires, doesn't work, ect...
Natural 2-3, if it manages to hit with bonuses automatically does minimum damage in this case 3.
Natural 18-19, automatic full damage, 18.
Natural 20, critical, automatic full damage, plus a roll 18+3d6.
And once you critical strike number goes down.
The range for full damage goes down with it, and Natural 20 crit becomes double full damge 36.

[kaid]

Yeah, it has to do with where you hit, grazing hit or full on and all variables that can spoil a perfect (or not so perfect) shot

So if I roll a natural 20 to hit and then roll a 3 on 3d6, you'd say I grazed my target?

--flatline

Hehe that kind of thing has been going on since 1st edition D&D with their two handed swords which were 3d6 damage.

I think rifts has a pretty reasonable mix of lower variability damage range weapons and greater damage variability so there are options out there a player can go with their preference.

no matter what though you are going to get the odd ball critically struck for minimal damage weirdness unless you go to a very different system that uses flat damage numbers where a weapon always does x damage unless you crit or apply various skills to improve it.

[Thinyser]

Part of the fun is the large variation. It adds to the drama in the game.

Now if I actually lived in Rifts, I'd rather not risk my life like that. I'd want a very predictable outcome.

Agreed.

1d6x10 is highly variable but also fast to roll. Its my pick.

35 all the time is even faster but not very dramatic. It would be fastest in combat since you can eliminate a damage roll. Therefore its my 2nd pick.

10d6 is lots to roll and overall not very dramatic either since it will usually end up from 30-40, This would be my last choice.

[say652]

I like the D6×10. I like the wider range and the faster resolution of damage.

[Colt47]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

I always have my calculator (HP 48G) and will often have it programmed with the appropriate die combinations so that I don't have to pause in my thinking. Just hit the button and get the result instantly.

--flatline

I'm working on an iOS dice rolling app now...

[Mack]

meh, i prefer rolling actual physical dice where reasonably possible. more satisfying.

Why bring a lap top to a pen and paper game anyway? Old school or no school.

I always have my calculator (HP 48G) and will often have it programmed with the appropriate die combinations so that I don't have to pause in my thinking. Just hit the button and get the result instantly.

--flatline

I'm working on an iOS dice rolling app now...

There's a few free ones out right now. I have one title "Dice Ex."

[Alrik Vas]

I add small numbers very fast, and also i like the tension it can create, so 10d6 isn't terrible.

However, i don't like the wide-ranges, so like i stated before, i'd prefer a constant even if it's not a huge number, so long as i can't get below a 20 or so.

Though i don't mind players using a roller, that's for sure. Especially when we've got 6 people at the table. Saves a lot of time in the end.

[cosmicfish]

Given the choice, I wouldn't roll separately for damage at all - it would solely be a function of the weapon, the user (for things like PS bonuses), and the hit roll. One big frustration for me in RPG's is when you have that great to-hit roll and the terrible damage roll, or vice versa.

"You hit him right between the eyes, but you did the lowest possible amount of damage. Meanwhile, Jack's shot barely hits, but wrecks him."

Unsatisfying and unrealistic.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I like the 10d6 best of the three options because because of the statistical variance, the extremes are very rare occurrences. And, since I RP only on-line, I really don't care about the number of dice since there is a nice dice roller in the PB chats.

[Alrik Vas]

Given the choice, I wouldn't roll separately for damage at all - it would solely be a function of the weapon, the user (for things like PS bonuses), and the hit roll. One big frustration for me in RPG's is when you have that great to-hit roll and the terrible damage roll, or vice versa.

"You hit him right between the eyes, but you did the lowest possible amount of damage. Meanwhile, Jack's shot barely hits, but wrecks him."

Unsatisfying and unrealistic.

In some games (and even some cases in palladium games) they do give you extra damage for certain maneuvers that are more difficult. Look at deathblows, called shot to the head, point blank range shots, etc. It pertains mostly to SDC types, but I have no problem letting it bleed over. Also there are robot/mech/PA critical hit tables, etc. I understand your gripe, though, 100%, I've just adapted things to my liking.

[The Beast]

Yeah, it has to do with where you hit, grazing hit or full on and all variables that can spoil a perfect (or not so perfect) shot

So if I roll a natural 20 to hit and then roll a 3 on 3d6, you'd say I grazed my target?

--flatline

It's been known to happen.

[cosmicfish]

Yeah, it has to do with where you hit, grazing hit or full on and all variables that can spoil a perfect (or not so perfect) shot

So if I roll a natural 20 to hit and then roll a 3 on 3d6, you'd say I grazed my target?

--flatline

You just managed to hit full on a bit of armor that was particularly thick, or slanted the wrong way.

This is the argument I usually see, but it implies either that the correct place to shoot is unknowable or else that the shooter is ignorant - not generally applicable in a situation involving professional fighters. A professional fighter should know where to strike to inflict maximum damage, and I do not see why they should be penalized a second time when they are already subject to luck.

How, you say? Well, the to-hit roll already takes into account that the best marksman may slip or fall victim to non-skill factors - that is why the dice are rolled, after all - and it also allows for the novice to make the miracle shot that finds the unknown weak spot. Adding a second die roll just serves to de-emphasize character skill and player strategy while boosting the roll of luck.

[Svartalf]

It implies that the target made the right move at the wrong time or the like, since your shot was as perfect as possible,, or that you were aiming for a part you could actually hit

[Blue_Lion]

Personally I prefer rolling physical dice to electronic rolling programs. It makes me feel more of a physical connection, and I find the suspense of calculating the results adds to the game. The more critical the results will be the more you feel the anticipation so while dice rolling programs are quicker they by no means write for every one and every situation.

I do play games that require lots of dice, such as shadow run, the old editions even used exploding 6s so while that may take longer it added to the suspense and the feel of accomplishment. (For those don't play shadow run D6s, the new edition the target number is set but in the old system it shifted by what you where doing normally target numbers where around 4 but you might have a target number higher than 6, to get a success in that you rerolled all 6s and it adds to the earlier roll on that die. So to hit a ungodly target number of 14 you would need to roll a six on a die reroll that die and get another 6 reroll that die again get a third 6 then reroll it again for a 2 or higher to get one success. The affects where adjusted by the number of success. Pulling off something like that gives a greater sense of achievement and made it more memorable but, could drastically slow down large games.)

So to me what is best is really comes down to the situation and the people involved at what you might want to use. In some cases it might be a dice rolling program others it could be large pool of dice, or one dice with a multiple. (I would point out that using physical dice does require the use of basic math at times so is light work out for your brain instead of having a program tell you the totals.)

[Kagashi]

1D6x10 for me if I were playing tabletop.

10D6 is too much of a pain with physical dice, and honestly, the average hovers around 35 anyway...very rarely diverging 10 points higher or lower. You will almost never get a 10 or a 60, whereas with 1D6x10, you have a 1 in 6 chance of that happening.

That being said, my most recent experience with role playing was with play by post and as a GM I would often just use the averages to expedite combat since I would do an entire melee round in one post.

[Colt47]

I've done damage both ways, rolling randomly and having set values. The best of both worlds is to just have a set number and add damage dice to it. 1d6+3, 3d6+20, etc.