Post by h3rne on May 27, 2015 17:06:03 GMT -5
Despite owning a vast number of RPG systems, I keep coming back to the clean simplicity of LoTS. I’m also an incorrigible modder, so excuse me playing with a system that’s essentially in no need of improvement…
Anyway, it recently occurred to me that being a "roll high but under" system makes LoTS particularly suitable for "one roll" streamlining, which might give me some gains in terms of time. Here's what I'm proposing to try:
When a character rolls to hit then the damage is based on the successful roll. What was once a 3d6 weapon now damages as the roll. 3d6 weapons will now do slightly less damage (as their maximum damage will be the DX of the character). The expectation value of damage for a DX 12 character would be 9.2 rather than 10.5.
There are several possible approaches to 2d6 and 1d6.
1. Simply use 2/3 of the roll for 2d6 and 1/3 of the roll for 1d6 (round up). I’m fine with this but some people might prefer something less mathy.
2. 2d6 does "choose any two” damage and 1d6 does “choose one”. 2d6 and 1d6 weapons will do more damage on average (there's a 42% chance of rolling at least one 6 on three d6 rather than 17% of rolling 6 on 1d6). Or if you prefer, the expectation value for a 1d6 roll rises from 3.5 to 4.96 and for a 2d6 roll from 7 to 8.46. However, this assumes a character with a STAT of 18. If your DX is 12, then the 2d6 expectation value is 7.61 and for 1d6 4.66.
3. 2d6 choose high and low. 1d6 choose median. These deliver the correct expectation values (7.0 and 3.5 for a STAT of 18 respectively). For DX12 you get 6.24 and 2.95. This might even be a less mathy equivalent to option 1, but I've not checked.
Things I like about this: Better skilled characters can do more damage with the same weapon. I'm also intending to give them the option of increasing the number of dice and then choosing the appropriate damage dice/die from the to hit pool.
Other rules that I would need to tweak: I now have to choose to dodge before the roll. The “dodge only when you’re sure you’re going to be hit” rule has always felt a bit “gamey” to me anyway, although I enjoyed the strategic choice of hanging back with a character low on HP until I was sure he wouldn’t need to dodge that round, which felt like a “lucky extra strike”.
Effects:
Combats with 3d6 weapons will be longer but less prone to high random swings (as very high rolls fail to hit). For option 1, the same is true for 2d6 and 1d6 weapons. For option 2 the difference between weapons is slightly eroded (3d6 vs 2d6 vs 1d6 are 10.5 vs 7.0 vs 3.5 (original) compared with 10.5 vs 8.5 vs 5.0 (highest) or for DX:12 9.2 vs 7.6 vs 4.7) but the average damage is higher for the smaller weapons making combats deadlier but faster. For option 3, the damage is eroded (9.19 vs 6.4 vs 2.95) but the values are similarly spaced, which will make combats longer.
As I’m going for increased speed overall, I’ll probably try option 2 on for size (I’m often dismayed by low rolls on 1d6 weapons too and quite like the effective “best of three rolls” vibe). Please feel free to join me in this little experiment and post your experiences to this thread.
If anyone would like the Python script that did the working please PM me. It also produces a rather useful probability table showing the probability of rolling a particular value or under on 3d6 which makes interesting reading too and has this lovely shape in the most common region used in LoTS from 8 to 12 (almost 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8):
n p(3d6<=n)
3 0.46%
4 1.85%
5 4.63%
6 9.26%
7 16.20%
8 25.93%
9 37.50%
10 50.00%
11 62.50%
12 74.07%
13 83.80%
14 90.74%
15 95.37%
16 98.15%
17 99.54%
18 100.00%
Anyway, it recently occurred to me that being a "roll high but under" system makes LoTS particularly suitable for "one roll" streamlining, which might give me some gains in terms of time. Here's what I'm proposing to try:
When a character rolls to hit then the damage is based on the successful roll. What was once a 3d6 weapon now damages as the roll. 3d6 weapons will now do slightly less damage (as their maximum damage will be the DX of the character). The expectation value of damage for a DX 12 character would be 9.2 rather than 10.5.
There are several possible approaches to 2d6 and 1d6.
1. Simply use 2/3 of the roll for 2d6 and 1/3 of the roll for 1d6 (round up). I’m fine with this but some people might prefer something less mathy.
2. 2d6 does "choose any two” damage and 1d6 does “choose one”. 2d6 and 1d6 weapons will do more damage on average (there's a 42% chance of rolling at least one 6 on three d6 rather than 17% of rolling 6 on 1d6). Or if you prefer, the expectation value for a 1d6 roll rises from 3.5 to 4.96 and for a 2d6 roll from 7 to 8.46. However, this assumes a character with a STAT of 18. If your DX is 12, then the 2d6 expectation value is 7.61 and for 1d6 4.66.
3. 2d6 choose high and low. 1d6 choose median. These deliver the correct expectation values (7.0 and 3.5 for a STAT of 18 respectively). For DX12 you get 6.24 and 2.95. This might even be a less mathy equivalent to option 1, but I've not checked.
Things I like about this: Better skilled characters can do more damage with the same weapon. I'm also intending to give them the option of increasing the number of dice and then choosing the appropriate damage dice/die from the to hit pool.
Other rules that I would need to tweak: I now have to choose to dodge before the roll. The “dodge only when you’re sure you’re going to be hit” rule has always felt a bit “gamey” to me anyway, although I enjoyed the strategic choice of hanging back with a character low on HP until I was sure he wouldn’t need to dodge that round, which felt like a “lucky extra strike”.
Effects:
Combats with 3d6 weapons will be longer but less prone to high random swings (as very high rolls fail to hit). For option 1, the same is true for 2d6 and 1d6 weapons. For option 2 the difference between weapons is slightly eroded (3d6 vs 2d6 vs 1d6 are 10.5 vs 7.0 vs 3.5 (original) compared with 10.5 vs 8.5 vs 5.0 (highest) or for DX:12 9.2 vs 7.6 vs 4.7) but the average damage is higher for the smaller weapons making combats deadlier but faster. For option 3, the damage is eroded (9.19 vs 6.4 vs 2.95) but the values are similarly spaced, which will make combats longer.
As I’m going for increased speed overall, I’ll probably try option 2 on for size (I’m often dismayed by low rolls on 1d6 weapons too and quite like the effective “best of three rolls” vibe). Please feel free to join me in this little experiment and post your experiences to this thread.
If anyone would like the Python script that did the working please PM me. It also produces a rather useful probability table showing the probability of rolling a particular value or under on 3d6 which makes interesting reading too and has this lovely shape in the most common region used in LoTS from 8 to 12 (almost 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8):
n p(3d6<=n)
3 0.46%
4 1.85%
5 4.63%
6 9.26%
7 16.20%
8 25.93%
9 37.50%
10 50.00%
11 62.50%
12 74.07%
13 83.80%
14 90.74%
15 95.37%
16 98.15%
17 99.54%
18 100.00%
