Down with Die Roll Modifiers! A Modest Proposal

[vtsaogames]

I have a modest proposal for rules designers, a minor detail, easily built into new game designs, with minor results. I have seen it in a few other games. Instead of the ubiquitous DRMs (Die Roll Modifiers), switch to TNMs (Target Number Modifiers). Whenever people apply DRMs in a game, they then do a small calculation to see what number they are trying to roll. For example, assume a D6 test that succeeds on 4+. Two different negative modifiers apply, subtracting a total of two from the die roll. Before rolling, the player calculates that only a 6 will succeed. If there are many die rolls during the game and many of them are modified, that many calculations will be made. This isn’t a deal breaker and I won’t throw out a good set of rules because they use DRMs.

I do think game designers should take it on themselves to do as much work as possible in their game designs to spare players from onerous calculations. A few years back at a convention, I played an Old School miniatures game that saw multi-step combat and morale resolutions that required multiplication and division. With large units, it looked great and hurt my head. While playing the game I thought how much faster the game would have played if we had used the combat systems from Bloody Big Battles, for instance. In that game 2D6 cross-referenced with a table yields results in short order for firing or close assaults. Morale is built into the movement table. While the Old School game had a retro feel to it, that is why I have moved on to newer designs.

     
                                        Looks, great head hurts.

In the example above where a D6 test succeeds on 4+, if two modifiers against the tester apply, then add 2 to the target number (which the player using DRMs will have to do anyway). It’s not a big deal but saves the players a little brain power that they can spend on trying to outwit the foe instead. All it requires is switching the modifiers. Any modifier that hurts the testing player is positive and any that help are negative. It may sound contrary but removes a small and unnecessary chore, simplifying the game without changing the overall design a bit.

Now to get my “Down with DRMs” sign and picket outside game publishers, claiming it is all a massive conspiracy…

[Easy E]

What if we keep the same target number, but just adjust the number of dice you roll up or down? 

So, normally the unit rolls 3 dice in combat.  Instead of changing the TN of 4+, we add or remove dice from there base number of dice?  So a -1 Mod means a unit of 3 would roll 2 dice.  A +1 mod would mean you roll 4 dice instead of 3. 

If you insist, you can even still cross-reference to a table for results, or just use a success equals a hit model.

[vtsaogames]

What if we keep the same target number, but just adjust the number of dice you roll up or down? 

So, normally the unit rolls 3 dice in combat.  Instead of changing the TN of 4+, we add or remove dice from there base number of dice?  So a -1 Mod means a unit of 3 would roll 2 dice.  A +1 mod would mean you roll 4 dice instead of 3. 

If you insist, you can even still cross-reference to a table for results, or just use a success equals a hit model.

For one thing, that changes the math, which might have unintended consequences. TNM doesn't chnage the math at all. But not a bad idea.

[sultanbev]

I use dice in all sorts of combinations and types to get the probabilty results I want in the rules we use. Primarily in pairs. Using static hit numbers and activation numbers but altering the type or number of dice also works well.

Unlike many contemporary rules sets, which seem to want to fit all outcomes to a single D6. Warfare doesn't operate in 16% intervals, and I just won't play such systems.

When using DRM, I class anything that improves your chances is a good thing, hence a + modifier, anything that decreases your chances is a bad thing, hence a - modifier.  But mentally adjust the number needed before rolling. Tonight for example I was firing 106mm HESH rounds at a BMP-R, in my rules the D20 to KO number is 5 or more, but HESH that actually penetrates adds +2, so I only needed a 3 or more. (And 1-2 is a dud anyway). So yes, guilty as charged , a bonus as written actually deducts from the dice roll number needed. But I've gotten used to it, helps if you use the same rules for 30-odd years.

I was told recently that tables where you cross-reference a dice roll with a number are too complicated for current wargamers and shouldn't be included in wargames rules!

[Elbows]

I'm not seeing how math in one direction is better than math in the other direction.  Anyone who's gamed enough will do the math automatically.  I have written games with...all manner of dice/maths/resolutions and enjoy them all.

My Old West game operates on a 5+ to succeed with players shifting dice types up and down as penalties/bonuses apply - the target number always remaining the same, regardless of instance.

My Dungeon Crawl uses D10s with Target Numbers that vary based on the creature/Hero you're attacking.  There are a couple of modifiers, but not too often - generally speaking attacks increase the number of dice thrown, but some DRMs exist.  In other instances armour and equipment will increase a Target Number - working both ways.

For my fantasy skirmish game I use 2D6 with a three-tier-result system borrowed from Dungeon World, and plenty of DRMs are present.  In fact a Model's stats are actually written as DRM's ranging from -2 up to +2.

I find none of these systems onerous, even when switching back and forth between them within a week, etc.  Guess I'm not grasping the difficulty.

[Major_Gilbear]

I agree with Elbows; Adding +1 or +2 to a dice roll or to the target number is (1) very basic maths that barely requires much thought, and (2) it's still the same maths done just as often...? What exactly is the difference here?

For an example of a game that tried (extremely) hard to avoid any dice modifiers at all, please see 40k 3rd-7th editions. Instead of modifiers, you rolled more/fewer dice, or were allowed to re-roll some/all the dice under certain conditions (eg - re-roll all 1s, or re-roll all misses). It didn't really make the game that much more streamlined in the end, and so in 8th edition onwards, modifiers were added back to the game.

Your suggestion of cross referencing volume of dice or dice scores on a table instead of individual modifiers has different issues; you still need to add modifiers, and you now have to memorise or continuously look up results in different charts. I can't honestly see this being much faster or less intrusive to the flow of the game.

Perhaps one of the better ideas I've seen to get around this was to have dice with different numbers of sides, and certain actions which would result in a modifier adjust which type of dice you roll instead.

So if you have a number of standard D6s and need a TN of 4+ on them, a penalty could reduce them to D4s, and a bonus could raise them to D8s. The TN is still 4+ every time, but the odds of getting this on D4/D6/D8 are 25%/50%/63%.

You could then require a certain number of successes to achieve whatever it was, which is another way of varying the odds but not needing modifiers.

So for example, continuing the example above, you might need to double the number of successes required to hit a target in cover. If you stand still and aim, you can raise your D6s to D8s, but if you move you have to lower the D6s to D4s. The player now has the choice to worsen the dice and hope to counter this by repositioning against the target so it's in the open, or stand still and improve the dice rolled to D8s and hope this will produce enough successes to beat the target's cover.

Ultimately, whilst I don't really mind modifiers as such, I do think that games where there are very long strings of them that ultimately result in either a massive change or reduce to an overall change of +/-1 get tedious quickly.

[black hat miniatures]

As I think has already been mentioned on the thread you started on another forum about this - I cannot see what you are trying to achieve by this change?

it is still maths and adding or subtracting a modifier, either from the die roll or from the target number.   I don't see it matters which you do.

Mike

[robh]

Are academic standards now so poor that the "maths" involved in adding and subtracting modifiers is onerous and difficult?
I don't see the problem you think is there, if anything the tendency now is to dumb things down too far.

[Easy E]

One or two modifiers are fine, it is when you start stacking mods that it is an issue.  To be the issue is not the math, it is properly applying all the mods and remembering them in the heat of the moment. 

I prefer "permissive" games where the only Mods you add are positive.  For example, if a unit is attacked on the flank, they do not get a negative mod, the attacker gets a positive mod instead.   

[Billchuck]

As I think has already been mentioned on the thread you started on another forum about this - I cannot see what you are trying to achieve by this change?

it is still maths and adding or subtracting a modifier, either from the die roll or from the target number.   I don't see it matters which you do.

Mike

If only one die is being rolled at a time, there isn't a difference.  But if the game has you roll 10 dice at once and asks you to add a modifier to each of those dice, it makes a difference.

If you roll 10 dice and need a 5+ to hit, and have +2 to the rolls, then either you need to add 2 to each of 10 rolls, or subtract 2 from the target number and read the dice as-is.  The results are equivalent, but the former requires a lot more mental math. 

If the game is written such that the latter is expected, then people don't have to figure it out on their own, and I don't have to explain to people who don't understand math why doing the latter is not cheating.

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Billchuck:

Okay, well in your example, I would do just one sum: target of rolling 5+ , add +2 hit bonus, equals new target of rolling 3+. I then roll all the dice together, and remove any that are 1s or 2s. I don't roll all the dice, and then do the +2 modifier for each dice one-by-one... That would be rather odd...? 

So in the context of either modifying the target number, or modifying the dice rolls, I still only do one really basic sum either way.

I guess this is why many people (and I've seen this topic has come up in the past) struggle to see why this is an issue?

[black hat miniatures]

If only one die is being rolled at a time, there isn't a difference.  But if the game has you roll 10 dice at once and asks you to add a modifier to each of those dice, it makes a difference.

If you roll 10 dice and need a 5+ to hit, and have +2 to the rolls, then either you need to add 2 to each of 10 rolls, or subtract 2 from the target number and read the dice as-is.  The results are equivalent, but the former requires a lot more mental math. 

If the game is written such that the latter is expected, then people don't have to figure it out on their own, and I don't have to explain to people who don't understand math why doing the latter is not cheating.

But no-one I play with does that - everyone goes +2, so 3 to hit.  Which I realise isn't what the rules say but it is what they mean and what evreyone does.  I don't see the need to spell it out...

Mike

[Hobgoblin]

For me, the two games that are most intuitive, fast-moving and easy to teach to kids are Song of Blades and Heroes (etc.) and Hordes of the Things/DBA. Both use both positive and negative modifiers (they essentially share a combat system). I've never seen anyone between the ages of 6 and 50 struggle with the maths, and the stacking up of modifiers is part of the fun:

"Right - the blades are in trouble here. They're +5, but they've overlapped, flanked and contacted to their rear. So they're only +2. Meanwhile, the warband starts at +3, but gets +1 for rear support, and they'll quick-kill the blades if they beat them ..."

[Storm Wolf]

But no-one I play with does that - everyone goes +2, so 3 to hit.  Which I realise isn't what the rules say but it is what they mean and what evreyone does.  I don't see the need to spell it out...

Mike

Yup right from the old Rogue Trader and BattleTech days and I think even with Star Fleet Battles I have always pre-modified the target number needed with any modifiers required. Such as a 4+ required to hit, but shooter has a targeter +1 to-hit but the target is in hard cover so -2 to-hit, leaving a net -1 to hit so a 5+ is required on a D6 (or D6's etc) to hit. its the other systems talked about above that I find very counter-intutive. Maybe its my age

Glen

[Elbows]

Having used dice roll modifiers for nigh on 30+ years from one dice up to the rather atrocious levels 40K occasionally reached (read: 30+ dice), the number of dice is irrelevant.

As stated above, the math is conducted once, providing a number you're looking to roll (either above or below, depending on your system).  I have never, in thirty years, met a person - of any age - who has struggled to comprehend a +1 or +2 modifier when chucking a handful of D6 dice, or any dice for that matter.

So, as I stated above, I think I'm missing the critique from the original author - maybe it needs to be written out again.  Perhaps we're all talking at cross purposes.  If not, then it's just a weird fixation someone has with an incredibly simple math mechanic.  Now, if the argument is that certain people with, I dunno, a mathematical form of dyslexia are struggling with that kind of math during a game - then that's an entirely different issue/discussion.

I have a buddy who is a 30+ year old IT savant...but can't do basic math and counts on his fingers (not exaggerating).  He just has a weird learning disability tick that makes it difficult for him.  So those people do exist.  But even he understand the basic concept of "You hit on a 4+, but you're -1" - "Okay, I need 5+s".