2d6 Vs 3d6 for skill checks

[Shadowblayde99]

Hello all.

The standard skill test is using 2d6 and there is a 42% chance of getting 8+.

If I wanted it to be exactly 50% chance of success then I could use 3d6 and need 11+.

This is without any skill or attribute modifiers.

I'm not sure why but feel that having 50% chance of success seems fairer, taking into account those with no skill meaning -3 modifier. Of course, trying to modify all the tables that have dice rolls in prewritten adventures would be a pain.

Has anyone else considered using checks with 3d6?

Or changing the standard 2d6 check to be success at 7+?

Would this unbalance the game?

 

[Sigtrygg]

MegaTraveller had target numbers of 3, 7, 11, and 15.

 

[Vormaerin]

yeah, but 7+ on 2d6 is 55% , still not an exact coin flip.

The problem with switching to 3d6 is more with the range of outcomes than with the chance of success. It dilutes the impact of bonuses. A skill of 3 is significantly more impactful on 2d6 than on 3d6. And, for instance, the range between a median result and the minimum or maximum result is wider. The worst or best result on 3d6 is +/- 8 compared to the middle result, whereas it is only +/-5 on 2d6.

 

[Galadrion]

Your game, you do it the way you prefer. THE basic rule, of any RPG system really. And there already are a few official rules - even in the Core Rulebook - which use rolls other than 2D6; look in the Trade chapter for immediate examples.

Personally, I don't see this driving need for "fairness". After all, as soon as you start factoring skills, attributes, circumstances, or really anything, the odds change and your "exact coin flip" isn't so exact any more. No, the actual advantages I see in using more dice is that it smooths out the granularity of the results distribution curve, and it can give you a wider range of results. (I like that second consideration for stellar distribution results - 1D6 or even 2D6 is just too linear for these, really.)

 

[Saladman]

It's never occurred to me. It's making a mechanical change for aesthetic reasons, which I'm automatically suspicious of.

I could see doing it though if you're accommodating a group that wants high term characters, or otherwise is getting high skill numbers written on their character sheets. Moving to 3-18 gives you more room to accommodate that without breaking the 2-12 range.

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

I'll point out that GDW rebalanced the Traveller task system to make 7+ on 2d6 the target in place of 8+. This was first published in Challenge 29, and incorporated into Megatraveller.

DPG/GDW Task System
Roll 2d6 plus bonuses. Targets are:

Simple: 3+
Routine: 7+
Difficult: 11+
Formidable: 15+
(Impossible): 19+ is implied from the 2300AD task system, which is a d10 version of the same. Impossible in the 2d6 version was literally that.

Bonuses are a crucial skill and a crucial attribute/ 5 (range of 0-3, with +1 or +2 being the norm). The bonus to the roll was capped at +8 (and -8).

Failure went to a failure roll with variable results, and there was no such thing as exceptional success.

Time taken is 3d6 - DM's * a set time (which is 1/10th of the average time) with 3 * time set as the minimum.

There were modifiers like uncertain, hazardous etc.

Hanrahan/Mongoose Task System
Roll 2d6 plus bonuses. Targets are:

Simple: 2+
Easy: 4+
Routine: 6+
Average: 8+
Difficult: 10+
Very Difficult: 12+
Formidable: 14+

Bonuses are a crucial skill and a crucial attribute (which runs -3 to +3, with an average of 0).

There is a table of success levels, and time is d6 "units."

This means tasks were more likely to be successful in GDW. A routine task for a skill-1 person with normal attributes would give about a 5+ on 2d6. In Mongoose the same task (average) is 7+

There was no task system in the original core rules, only attacks in combat and things done on a case by case basis. No-one wants to bring back the likes of required & advantageous dexterity for guns etc.

Personally, I think the GDW system is generally better, especially as I dislike the players having negative stat modifiers. The number of difficulty levels in Mongoose is superfluous. The degree of success/failure based on the initial dice roll in Mongoose is, however, a huge improvement over the failure table.

My house rules for GDW's system used the idea of levels of success/failure based on the difficulty bands, and I disliked the "check determination" result so dropped it. Failure by upto 4 points was a failure with retries allowed, and success by upto 4 points was a success. More than 4 gave exceptional success, and failure by more than 4 went to a mishap (serious mishap if a hazardous task), removing the failure table. I also hated the automatic 2 is failure, and didn't use it.

Overall, I'd say 7+ on 2d6 is closer to GDW, but due to the changed way attributes work making the 6+ routine task equivalent to the 7+ routine task of GDW gives results much closer to the GDW rules.

 

[Reisender]

Regardless of the target number, let the players roll often enough and they will fail. So the key is to know when to roll IMHO. And it is up to the referee to determine what happens, when a player fails a test anyway.
Btw. a DM+1, either by a characteristic or a skill, should be pretty standard, so in most cases a character will need a 7 anyway.
Rolling D6, if you do not use a dice pool system, e.g. Shadowrun, results will always be very broad/coarse. Percentile based system offen a finer detail and more possibilities to modify the roll.
I like the simple system used in Traveller and would not tinker with it.
Another way would be to use the Boon and Bane system more often, though personally I don't think that it fits Traveller very well.

 

[Sigtrygg]

MegaTraveller did have exceptional success of a sort for combat tasks...

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

MegaTraveller did have exceptional success of a sort for combat tasks...

Ah yes, marginal success (rolling exactly the target no.) was 50% armour penetration, and success by 2 was double damage, 4 quad and 8 was 8x damage.

Conversion to wounding was if the penetration value was 2x more than the armour, full damage was inflicted, between 1x and 2x was 50% damage and 10% damage if the penetration was less than armour if in partial armour, or nil if in a fully armoured suit.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I switched to a 3d mechanic for MegaTraveller and found it much better. These days I just stick with a 2d system based on 77 CT with boon/bane added.
By the way the MT ide to task is worth a mention:

WORKING WITH TASKS
As you work with the task system, here are a few pointers:
- Don’t overdo predefined tasks. Many of the published
tasks are suggestions, not absolute requirements.
- A Destroyed mishap can only occur from a fumble on a
hazardous task or from failure on a fateful, hazardous task.
- Task subdivision invites mishaps
- Don’t implement mishaps if they seem out of place.
- Don’t bother rolling for time unless it is important.
- Use tasks with a difficulty level of Simple to see how long something will take.
- The goal is always to keep the game moving, don’t become ‘a slave to the rules,
- When establishing the difficulty level of a task, assume a skill level of zero in the crucial skill Then if the character doesn’t have the crucial skill, raise the established task difficulty one level (see DM notes, below).
- The task system is intended to provide instant “substance” to a situation without getting bogged down in game rules. Use only as much of a task as seems appropriate,

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

Hello all.

The standard skill test is using 2d6 and there is a 42% chance of getting 8+.

If I wanted it to be exactly 50% chance of success then I could use 3d6 and need 11+.

This is without any skill or attribute modifiers.

I'm not sure why but feel that having 50% chance of success seems fairer, taking into account those with no skill meaning -3 modifier. Of course, trying to modify all the tables that have dice rolls in prewritten adventures would be a pain.

Has anyone else considered using checks with 3d6?

Or changing the standard 2d6 check to be success at 7+?

Would this unbalance the game?

Putting it simply, using 3d6 over 2d6 would distort the value of skill and characteristic bonuses.

Messy.