<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=kyle3054@iprimus.com.au href="mailto:kyle3054@iprimus.com.au">Kyle
Schuant</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=curufea@yahoo.com
href="mailto:curufea@yahoo.com">Curufea</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 17, 2005 10:30 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Design] Why random rolls? d4-d4</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Everyone says that who hasn't read or played
it;)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I stole the add-subtract dice mechanic from
Masterbook (d10+d10, compared to a table to get -9 to +9, essentially d10-d10 in
effect), not from Fudge. Fudge has 4dF, the "dF" being a d6 marked twice each
with +1, -1, and 0. So that results range from -4 to +4, with a 1 in 3^4 = 1 in
81 chance of the +4 result. This compares to d4-d4, with a range of -3 to +3,
and a 1 in 16 chance of the top result of +3. So, compared to Fudge, d4-d4 has a
narrower range of results, and the extreme results are more likely. Also it has
dice players can get from their stores a lot more easily:)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The descriptors for ability
levels I stole from Over the Edge, just as Fudge stole them. Initially I had a
percentile system. Then one day before a one-off game sesssion with pre-gens, I
thought it'd be fun to have the percentages, but have them concealed from the
players. So for each 20% band I had a descriptor,
Poor/Fair/Good/Excellent/Outstanding. The reasoning was that people don't know
their abilities to within one percentage point; the variation from random
effects is greater than the variation of abilities within a broad band. That is,
abilities are actually for example 73%+/-10%. On a really good day you may score
83% in that Math test, on a really bad day, 63%. You'll never score 2%, or 100%,
and you'll usually score somewhere around 73%. But you're not going to do enough
tests to ever find that out. So in practice people's abilities on personnel
files are rated as "good" or whatever. The particular game I developed this for
was an espionage game, and I wanted their character sheets to look like
personnel files to give them an extra feeling of "realism." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Players still rolled percentile
dice to resolve actions, but they didn't know their success or failure until I
as GM told them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Then after that session I
thought, well, if you're not using the percentages, just words, why have
the percentages at all? Then I remembered Masterbook, and their system of
attribute+skill + d10-d10; this was compared to another character's score (in
Opposed tests, like arm wrestling)) or a Difficulty Number (in Unopposed tests,
like lifting heavy stuff). The result being that performances, rather than
success/failure, gave a result which would fail or succeed, but fail or succeed
by certain _degrees_, and would hover around the person's basic ability level.
Because let's face it, the person who is Excellent doesn't fail 21-40% of the
time. They usually perform with Excellence, sometimes just Good, and sometimes
Outstanding. Rarely they might do extremely well or extremely badly.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The add-subtract dice gave me
that result. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> When using descriptors, you
don't want to have more than about eleven, with not more than five or so
commonly used, since English doesn't provide enough which are clearly different.
Is "great" better or worse than "awesome?" So the -3 to +3 range, of seven
possible results, was in between that 5 and 11. I really wanted to use d6-d6,
but the result range of -5 to +5 took it "off the chart" too often. Plus, it's
nice to use dice that are neglected. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cheers,<BR>Kyle<BR>Better Mousetrap Games<BR>home
of d4-d4 and other stuff<BR><A
href="http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?manufacturers_id=339">http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?manufacturers_id=339</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=curufea@yahoo.com href="mailto:curufea@yahoo.com">Curufea</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=design@mimesisrpg.com
href="mailto:design@mimesisrpg.com">design@mimesisrpg.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 17, 2005 9:45
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Design] Why random
rolls?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>> > I think you mean, "Kyle's d4-d4 system.":)<BR>> Er
yes. I'm not dyslexic, honestly.<BR><BR>Sounds almost exactly like Fudge Dice
to me.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Peter Cobcroft<BR><A
href="mailto:curufea@yahoo.com">curufea@yahoo.com</A><BR>Main: <A
href="http://www.curufea.com/">http://www.curufea.com/</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________
<BR>Do you Yahoo!? <BR>The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers,
Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. <BR><A
href="http://au.movies.yahoo.com">http://au.movies.yahoo.com</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Design
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Design@mimesisrpg.com">Design@mimesisrpg.com</A><BR><A
href="http://mimesisrpg.com/mailman/listinfo/design_mimesisrpg.com">http://mimesisrpg.com/mailman/listinfo/design_mimesisrpg.com</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>