Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Using d10s instead of d6s
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Little Bill
I've said a couple of times on this forum that I would have liked a Shadowrun system that uses d10s instead of d6s. The main reason being that Target Number modifiers would have slightly less effect on the difficulty of a task, since the chance of success drops very sharply for targets above 6 with the normal Shadowrun rules.

I thought of another possible advantage to using d10s: If you read the "0" as zero rather than 10 you get rid of the irritating "probability gaps" that the re-roll and add d6 system has at 6-7, 12-13, and so forth. With that system you would re-roll your ten-siders on a "9" result and could get no advantage from the new die if it comes up zero.
Also the lowest target number becomes 1 rather than 2, since you can roll a zero.

Switching to d10s without tinkering further with the TNs would make everything a little bit easier than with the standard d6 system, but it would mostly affect the really difficult things (which I tend to feel are too difficult in normal Shadowrun).

Thoughts? Zealous flames for the heretic? "C'mon we've heard that a dozen times before?"
Smiley
WIIIIIITCH! BURN HIIIIIIIM!
hahnsoo
"C'mon we've heard that a dozen times before" is my response, only because it's already the standard mechanic for the old WOD system. If you want to play with d10s, more power to ya. You're going to have reconcile the Force of spells, Opposed Tests with Attributes, etc. It's probably more trouble than it's worth.
Modesitt
Or you could go the SR4/WoD route and just stop screwing around with TNs and make modifiers just modify the number of dice you throw with have thresholds.

The d10's a stupid, ugly little die. Friends don't let friends build systems on dice that aren't Platonic Solids. D4's hurt to step on, d8's and d12's aren't easy to calculate probability wise, leaving the d6 for convenience and the d20 for easy calculations.
Kaosaur
I dunno...

His idea does sound pretty solid...
And d10s are both convenient and easier than d20s for calculation.

I'm not a big WoD fan but the system he describes is mathematically sound
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
I dunno...

His idea does sound pretty solid...
And d10s are both convenient and easier than d20s for calculation.

I'm not a big WoD fan but the system he describes is mathematically sound

Not until you convert the entirety of Shadowrun to accomodate the d10. This means a range of natural "normal" Attributes of 1 to 10, prorating racial abilities, changing all weapon damage codes, etc. It's a large job, more power to ya if you do it.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
I'm not a big WoD fan but the system he describes is mathematically sound

No more so than subtracting 1 from all rule-of-6 rerolls.

~J
Kaosaur
But you still have a more limited range because your lowest TN is 2.
Kaosaur
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
QUOTE (Kaosaur @ Apr 22 2005, 07:44 PM)
I dunno...

His idea does sound pretty solid...
And d10s are both convenient and easier than d20s for calculation.

I'm not a big WoD fan but the system he describes is mathematically sound

Not until you convert the entirety of Shadowrun to accomodate the d10. This means a range of natural "normal" Attributes of 1 to 10, prorating racial abilities, changing all weapon damage codes, etc. It's a large job, more power to ya if you do it.

What reason would you have for changing all attributes to be 1-10.

Attributes aren't rolled stats in the first place...and you can already have attributes higher than 6.

There is no need or reason to change that that I can think of off the top of my head.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
But you still have a more limited range because your lowest TN is 2.

Wha? There's exactly one value below the minimum TN in both cases.

~J
Kaosaur
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Kaosaur @ Apr 22 2005, 07:58 PM)
But you still have a more limited range because your lowest TN is 2.

Wha? There's exactly one value below the minimum TN in both cases.

~J

Not if you're making it 0-9, like he made abundantly clear that you would be doing in this system.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
What reason would you have for changing all attributes to be 1-10.

Attributes aren't rolled stats in the first place...and you can already have attributes higher than 6.

There is no need or reason to change that that I can think of off the top of my head.

Because you've changed the probabilities of the game. Suddenly, a Manabolt against a Willpower of 6 has a greater number of successes. Suddenly, everyone is going to hit all the time with their guns, because a base TN of 4 is remarkably easy to hit. You have to adjust the statistics and numbers of the game if you change what die you are using.
Kaosaur
True enough. The racial maximums would need to be increased, but I don't think it's that dramatic of a change. You would only have to raise to 9.

It is a tremendous amount of work but it just takes somebody who' s determined with a great grasp of the rules and some good understanding of probability.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
Not if you're making it 0-9, like he made abundantly clear that you would be doing in this system.

He also made it abundantly clear that the lowest TN would then be 1. The value below 1 on that die would be 0, the value below 2 on a d6 would be 1.

~J
Smiley
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
True enough. The racial maximums would need to be increased, but I don't think it's that dramatic of a change. You would only have to raise to 9.

It is a tremendous amount of work but it just takes somebody who' s determined with a great grasp of the rules and some good understanding of probability.

Ok, but what's the point? You can convert it to D100 if you want to, but why bother when the system already works?
Kaosaur
QUOTE (Smiley)
QUOTE (Kaosaur @ Apr 22 2005, 08:18 PM)
True enough.  The racial maximums would need to be increased, but I don't think it's that dramatic of a change.  You would only have to raise to 9.

It is a tremendous amount of work but it just takes somebody who' s determined with a great grasp of the rules and some good understanding of probability.

Ok, but what's the point? You can convert it to D100 if you want to, but why bother when the system already works?

to increase the range of target numbers (which allows for a finer selection of TNs for challenges) and to cut back on the frequency of the Rule of 6.

I will admit that some of the run is rerolling a 6 upteen times but...in all seriousness, it should probably not be that easy.

It basically gives you the chance to have more realistic outcomes to your challenges...
A GM can set up something with a somewhat high target number without the chance of the player blowing it away on some obscene roll (my record for a roll is 107, for example).

Sure the chance is still there, but it won't happen nearly as often which makes things much more realistic.

With d6, luck is like a built in 3 point edge that everyone has for free.
Smiley
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
QUOTE (Smiley @ Apr 22 2005, 08:37 PM)
QUOTE (Kaosaur @ Apr 22 2005, 08:18 PM)
True enough.† The racial maximums would need to be increased, but I don't think it's that dramatic of a change.† You would only have to raise to 9.

It is a tremendous amount of work but it just takes somebody who' s determined with a great grasp of the rules and some good understanding of probability.

Ok, but what's the point? You can convert it to D100 if you want to, but why bother when the system already works?

to increase the range of target numbers (which allows for a finer selection of TNs for challenges) and to cut back on the frequency of the Rule of 6.

I will admit that some of the run is rerolling a 6 upteen times but...in all seriousness, it should probably not be that easy.

It basically gives you the chance to have more realistic outcomes to your challenges...
A GM can set up something with a somewhat high target number without the chance of the player blowing it away on some obscene roll (my record for a roll is 107, for example).

Sure the chance is still there, but it won't happen nearly as often which makes things much more realistic.

With d6, luck is like a built in 3 point edge that everyone has for free.

Really? It's too easy?

Let's see you pull off the kill shot on a guy running behind partial cover in lowlight. I guarantee he dodges. With all the applicable modifyers, target numbers are right where they should be. If you want to restructure everything to fit D10, that's your house rule. Have fun re-propotioning everything. I just don't see what the point is.
Charon
EDIT : Meh. Lots of work for little payback. I prefer the fixed TN road.
Crusher Bob
I did the math for 0-9 SR a while back. The numbers looked pretty good. You can add 1 to all 'standard' TNs or just leave it as it is if you prefer to bias the system toward success more. (This is counting the '10' on the d10 as a 0, not a 10).
Edward
Just for the hell of it I considered the probability of hitting target 60 using a D6 and a D10 (0-9).

Using a D6 you need 10 6s in a row. Chance on a single die 0.0000000165 & change
Using a d10 0-9 you need 6 9s and a 6. Chance on a single die 0.0000004 exactly

Strangely your new system designed to make it harder to fluke an obscenely high target number actually made it easier by a factor of 24 times in this case.

An easy mistake to make the effect comes from the fact that you have to roll the smaller dice more often.

Sorry

Edward

edit fix my maths
Pthgar
My group switch to d10 a while back. We use the full force for drain codes, revised (almost) all the target numbers up by two. It's okay. I think that we did the minimum amount of work to make it reasonably effective. It would probably be better if we put more of an effort into it.

I am actually looking forward to SR4 and going back to being full canon. It's too much of a headache for a GM that already is doing a lot.
Little Bill
The basic idea is not to make higher TNs more difficult - it's to make them less difficult.

I see no reason to change the Attribute scale - sure the attribute will be an easier TN, but the resistance rolls will be made on d10s as well, so things should balance out somewhat.



golden1
i'm probably going to burned at the stake for mentioning this, but if you convert to d8's and add 1 to all target numbers,the rules as described for sr4, become exactly compatable with the WoD rules... assuming you also convert wod to d8's, and take1 off all their target numbers. both systems will then use Stat + skill dice, tn 6, most successes win, ties are ties.

i'm not saying the systems are Exactly the same,but if one point of "edge" happens to cost 3 karma to buy, just remember you read it here first.
Kaosaur
QUOTE (Edward)
Just for the hell of it I considered the probability of hitting target 60 using a D6 and a D10 (0-9).

Using a D6 you need 10 6s in a row. Chance on a single die 0.0000000165 & change
Using a d10 0-9 you need 6 9s and a 6. Chance on a single die 0.0000004 exactly

Strangely your new system designed to make it harder to fluke an obscenely high target number actually made it easier by a factor of 24 times in this case.

An easy mistake to make the effect comes from the fact that you have to roll the smaller dice more often.

Sorry

Edward

edit fix my maths

Yeah that's all well and good but it's highly dependant on getting that first roll for the rollover.

And also considering that nothing really ever has a TN that high anyway, it's a nonissue...
The point is to make it less likely for somebody to hit multiple rerolls to beat any challenge.

It's rare when anything has a TN all that high and it's far easier to get that first or even second 1in6 than the 1in10.
Dawnshadow
..How do you figure?

2 6's in a row: 1 in 36 chance.
1 '9': 1 in 10 chance..

1 in 10 is a lot better than 1 in 36.. over 3 times better in fact..
Eyeless Blond
TN 8 w/ d6s: 6 followed by 2-or-higher: 1 in 12 = .09
TN 8 w/ d10-1: 2 in 10 = .2

TN 6-7 w/ d6s: 1 in 6 = .1667
TN 7 w/ d10-1: 3 in 10 = .3
TN 6 w/ d10-1: 4 in 10 = .4

Basically the d10 system improves probabilities across the board. In Classic Deadlands (and, for that matter, the Savage Worlds system) higher die types are used for better attributes/higher skills for just this reason.
Kaosaur
You guys aren't considering something and are using numbers that fit your argument.

When you take something with a TN6 in d6, it's equivalent int d10 is TN10.

In the system described, you have to first hit a 9, and then a 1 on the reroll. that is MUCH MUCH harder than hitting the 6 and blowing the challenge away.

As far as that example with the number 60,

in d6, that's 10 rolls. in d10 that's only 6...

that's not really fair because the d6 challenge should be HARDER than the d10 challenge. The d10 challenge would be at a higher equivalent target number.
hahnsoo
All I'm saying is that making the game mechanics of Shadowrun fit using a d10 system is more than just a simple change of a die and prorating target numbers. If you change the probabilities of the game, you change the overall challenge and feel of the game mechanic. It's not more "right" or "wrong", but different. I think one has to take the typical SR d6 probabilities into account when making a d10 conversion, otherwise you end up with a skewed (and possibly unbalanced) system. For one thing, difficulty starts to taper off at 90% (any TN above 9) under d10 than ~83% (any TN above 5) under d6.
Kaosaur
actually, I need to correct myself.

In the system described, the equivalent would actually be TN9, which has worse odds than d6.
Kaosaur
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
All I'm saying is that making the game mechanics of Shadowrun fit using a d10 system is more than just a simple change of a die and prorating target numbers. If you change the probabilities of the game, you change the overall challenge and feel of the game mechanic. It's not more "right" or "wrong", but different. I think one has to take the typical SR d6 probabilities into account when making a d10 conversion, otherwise you end up with a skewed (and possibly unbalanced) system. For one thing, difficulty starts to taper off at 90% (any TN above 9) under d10 than ~83% (any TN above 5) under d6.

actually, with 9 being the reroll and 0 being 0, difficult tapers at ~80%...

But still...

There are two ways to do it IF you want to make the conversion, one way will make it easier (1-10) and the other will make it harder (0-9, which I am advocating, for the simple reason that the game feels too easy sometimes. I have only twice ever gotten roll-screwed in this system)...while you could just increase TNs as a house rule, the reason why it's superior to have a dice-side with a 0 value is that it gives the GM more flexibility in customizing their challenges.

With a 1-6 or even a 1-10 value, you have a gap. in d6, there is no TN6, because noone can ever roll a flat 6. While you can have a TN6, it's pointless and it should either be TN5 or TN7.

When you give a die a 0 side, you CAN roll a flat 5 (on a d6) or flat 9 (on a d10), which allows you a greater range of challenge difficulties. This is something that I consider to be quite significant (either 17 or 20 percent significant, depending on the die)

It gives the GM greater flexibility to choose how difficult the game will be to the players and not have some gap imposed by the poor mathematics of the system.


I would have no problem with d6 if it was on a 0-5 basis. I'm just really advocating the 0 value dice-side.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
actually, with 9 being the reroll and 0 being 0, difficult tapers at ~80%...

Umm, no. At a TN 9 (difficulty of 90%), you have exactly a 10% chance of getting a success. At a TN 10 (difficulty of 91%), you have exactly a 9% chance of getting a success. And so on, until you reach a TN of 18 (difficulty of 99%), which has exactly a 1% chance of success, where the second taper point occurs.
Kaosaur
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
QUOTE (Kaosaur @ Apr 23 2005, 10:36 PM)
actually, with 9 being the reroll and 0 being 0, difficult tapers at ~80%...

Umm, no. At a TN 9 (difficulty of 90%), you have exactly a 10% chance of getting a success. At a TN 10 (difficulty of 91%), you have exactly a 9% chance of getting a success. And so on, until you reach a TN of 18 (difficulty of 99%), which has exactly a 1% chance of success, where the second taper point occurs.

I'm sorry, you're completely correct.

It's very sad that I'm so tired as to not be able to wrap my brain around simple math right now.

I'm going to have to kick myself a few times when I get around to getting a good amount of rest.

Although, If I'm reading what yous aid correctly, that supports my statement that there is greater flexibility in choosing a difficulty level with a 0 value side.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
Although, If I'm reading what yous aid correctly, that supports my statement that there is greater flexibility in choosing a difficulty level with a 0 value side.

I'm not disputing that. It's a long and tired argument, though... the 6-7 plateau has long been a bugbear (and in some cases, a beloved sidekick) of the SR core mechanics.

Again, greater flexibility and better probability curves are great... but you have to retrofit the entirety of the Shadowrun mechanic and statistics to it, and it's not just a simple task of prorating all target numbers or refusing to change the numbers (while changing the mechanic). It's a completely different ball game, there.
Kaosaur
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
QUOTE (Kaosaur @ Apr 23 2005, 10:52 PM)
Although, If I'm reading what yous aid correctly, that supports my statement that there is greater flexibility in choosing a difficulty level with a 0 value side.

I'm not disputing that. It's a long and tired argument, though... the 6-7 plateau has long been a bugbear (and in some cases, a beloved sidekick) of the SR core mechanics.

Again, greater flexibility and better probability curves are great... but you have to retrofit the entirety of the Shadowrun mechanic and statistics to it, and it's not just a simple task of prorating all target numbers or refusing to change the numbers (while changing the mechanic). It's a completely different ball game, there.

well, since it looks like there's going to be a whole new system anyway ;D

why not a 0-5 d6 system while we're going about all these sweeping changes. ;D
Little Bill
QUOTE (Kaosaur)
[QUOTE=hahnsoo,Apr 23 2005, 11:02 PM] why not a 0-5 d6 system while we're going about all these sweeping changes.

A 0-5 d6 system still has the problem that TN modifiers have a huge impact on the difficulty of a task and vary wildly in the amount of difficulty that they add to making a roll depending on the initial target number.
The 0-9 d10 system smooths these out a bit.
Smiley
Modifiers SHOULD have an impact on the difficulty of a task. They're there for a reason. You just want things to be easier, it seems. Make SR a D10 system, if you want to. It's a house rule and it's unnecessarily complicated. I don;t know why you're seeking approval on this site. You're not going to find it.
Veracusse
I don't think that he is seeking approval, but discussion on the issue. Of course there are those that will agree and disagree.

I think that there are some benefits to using a d10 in that the probabilities are a little more elegant, at least from what I understand of the discussion. However, I really like the difficulty that the d6 has with the set of modifiersd in sr3. Translating the modifiers directly over to a d10 system would allow rolls to be too easy for my tastes. If there was a way to calculate the modifiers so that they would represent a d10, or and die for that matter, then I would consider using it as a GM.

Veracusse
Herald of Verjigorm
The probabilities aren't more elegant, just easier for most. With a d6 system, modifiers that don't change the TN above 6 affect a clear 1/6 change per point. Due to a base 10 number system, this looks cumbersome when written as a percent: 16.66666666666666666666666666666...
It gets even less obvious when looking at probabilities on a second die since they are defined as x/36, which is an even less intuitive number to translate into a percentage.

D10 just makes it so the first die of modifiers are the tens digit in the percent chance of success and the next die are the ones digit. It just changes the probability of success per die into something that people can grasp with their dominant mathematical paradigm and little thought.

Any change you make to the rolls of the game is fair if it affects everyone equally. However, 'better' in this regard is purely subjective, so don't expect others to agree. The only group whose agreement matters for your suggested house rule is the group you play Shadowrun with.
Edward
I donít see the D10 as being any worse than a D6 inherently.

The problem with the flat points in the difficulty curve is annoying yes but changing to D10 would require a major change of attributes, spell forces and weapon powers.

Take for example social skills. They are typically skill TN stat apposed by skill or stat TN stat. with modifiers.

Those with a high stat of 6 or 7 thus will be hard to score successes against with a D6 system but with a D10-1 system the chance of success is good.

This situation repeats itself for spells (both casting and resisting) and damage resistance tests.

Its not that the D10 system wouldnít work, just that it needs an alarming amount of changes to make it work. Changing rule of 6 to add D6-1 would remove the flat points from the curve with the only side effect being making high rolls harder to achieve (something that was previously toted as a good thing)

Edward
Little Bill
QUOTE (Smiley @ Apr 24 2005, 06:03 AM)
Modifiers SHOULD have an impact on the difficulty of a task. They're there for a reason. You just want things to be easier, it seems...I don;t know why you're seeking approval on this site. You're not going to find it.

I really don't care if you approve of the idea or not - I'm soliciting opinions on what would need to be done to get it to work, not overall approval.
And yes, the objective is to make most rolls easier and involve less die rolling. The d10 idea will do that.
Little Bill
QUOTE (Edward)
Take for example social skills. They are typically skill TN stat apposed by skill or stat TN stat. with modifiers.

Those with a high stat of 6 or 7 thus will be hard to score successes against with a D6 system but with a D10-1 system the chance of success is good.

This situation repeats itself for spells (both casting and resisting) and damage resistance tests.

If the chance is equally improved for both the acting and the resisting rolls (since both are now using d10), then we've kept our balance between the two largely intact, haven't we? The difference is that more successes will be rolled, but more successes will be rolled on both sides.


Edward
QUOTE (Little Bill)
QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 24 2005, 01:39 PM)
Take for example social skills. They are typically skill TN stat apposed by skill or stat TN stat. with modifiers.

Those with a high stat of 6 or 7 thus will be hard to score successes against with a D6 system but with a D10-1 system the chance of success is good.

This situation repeats itself for spells (both casting and resisting) and damage resistance tests.

If the chance is equally improved for both the acting and the resisting rolls (since both are now using d10), then we've kept our balance between the two largely intact, haven't we? The difference is that more successes will be rolled, but more successes will be rolled on both sides.

True.

This will have an affect on the number of net successes when the skill or stat difference is large. But this will rarely be an issue.

Also it favours the low stat in such tests because they have a greater improvement in the chance of a successes. I am not saying low stats will win most of the time, just that there is a larger part for luck to play.

Another point is drain. If you donít modify the drain codes then spell casters will not fear it. 6S drain was a serious thing requiring a probable 36 ice for complete resistance (that is to say accept some drain or use karma). Using your D10-1 system 15 dice will provide probable full resistance.

Edward
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Little Bill)
If the chance is equally improved for both the acting and the resisting rolls (since both are now using d10), then we've kept our balance between the two largely intact, haven't we? The difference is that more successes will be rolled, but more successes will be rolled on both sides.

I don't buy the "opposed test makes all things better" argument. For one thing, higher TNs on opposed tests make the outcome far more random (due to the high threshold for success). Opposed tests give the distinct advantage to someone who has a 6 or higher on a stat vs. someone who has 5 or lower, and I think this is part of the built-in SR mechanic. This is why the attribute caps and skill caps are 6 for starting characters. Also, opposed tests only cover a limited number of rolls. Suddenly, all weapons have been nerfed by 2 Power or more, for example. Suddenly, decking into a Red host has become significantly easier.
Little Bill
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Opposed tests give the distinct advantage to someone who has a 6 or higher on a stat vs. someone who has 5 or lower, and I think this is part of the built-in SR mechanic.† This is why the attribute caps and skill caps are 6 for starting characters.

This could be a problem I suppose. Of course, it's a rare PC in the games I've seen that doesn't have at least one attribute above 6 to begin with. I thought that limiting beginning skills to 5 rather than 6 might be a good idea.
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Also, opposed tests only cover a limited number of rolls.† Suddenly, all weapons have been nerfed by 2 Power or more, for example.† Suddenly, decking into a Red host has become significantly easier.

Weapons are essentially an opposed test, just with different TNs for each side.
The TN for the dodge test probably would have to go up to 6.
And decking seems to be amazingly difficult under the current system for beginning characters (or maybe my GM just likes throwing us up against systems that are too much for us to handle).
Kagetenshi
Beginning characters should run again Green-Easy or Orange-Easy hosts only.

~J
Edward
A starting character should have a good chance against a red easy and with high masking and masking mode even a red average is a good chance. Just donít stick around if you hit passive alert.

As to staring character attributes I have seen many characters with no attributes over 6. mostly human spell casters but also riggers and deckers.

Edward
Kagetenshi
Er, no. Red hosts typically only have about three points of tally between trigger steps, and an Average is going to be expecting to raise tally once every test or two on anything a starting decker can dish out for DF. Even a Green-Average is a bad chance.

~J
Edward
I have seen starting deckers slice into a red average satalight host and gain super user axes without triggering a passive alert. True they triggered the first 2 layers of IC (at 2 and 4 I think) the first being quickly suppressed and the second not getting a chance to do anything being the type that ads security tally when you do something you donít have an account for. Having a super user account by this time meant there was no such action (other than find pay data but he left that for the next visit, after the job was done.

Edward
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Edward)
A starting character should have a good chance against a red easy and with high masking and masking mode even a red average is a good chance.

That's assuming you are using the optional "mode" rules, or anything else that boosts detection factor. The problem with using those rules is that it boosts detection factor without a corresponding additional rule for hosts to counteract it somehow. It's one of the main problems of the "everything relies on a System vs. Detection Factor roll" mechanic.
Kagetenshi
I'm definitely going to need more information on what went down during that run, because that's more or less completely counter to all of my experience (which is not inconsiderable).

~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012