D & D, in all its manifestations, is a great game. It blends both strategy and skill with chance and luck. In my opinion, it is the apex of the whole concept of “game.” Chess, for example, is all strategy and control. There is no luck involved. At all. I think Go is another one of all strategy, no luck – but I’m not as versed in that game as I am in chess or D & D. I guess poker is kind of a blend between strategy and chance … anyway, I’m getting too, I don’t know, nerdy maybe. I just want to say that I think D & D and all other pen and paper RPG’s like it, are the apex of gaming. I don’t think humanity will ever invent another game like it/them.
But it has its shortcomings.
A Matter Of Odds
I’ve been playing 5th edition D&D for some time now. In two different campaigns. And, on several occasions, the same thing has happened which … strains belief. In both campaigns there are at least one really strong fighter type, and a tiny female gnome (I think there’s a gnome in both) who has maybe average strength.
Basically, I’m talking about the situation where the powerful mighty warrior with a Strength of around 20 tries to open a door or force a gate or what-have-you and fails the DC roll. Then the gnome comes along, a quarter the warrior’s size, and with a Strength around 10, maybe at most a 12, and she rolls and makes the DC check.
It’s silly. And fun. But it is ridiculously unrealistic. I’m not sure I would want to change the system because of it – because it’s just a fantasy game, and it is fun – if a little silly.
Linear Odds
Looking at the odds. Suppose it’s a DC 20 roll required. The warrior has a 20 strength and the gnome a 10. The warrior succeeds on a 15 or higher (or 25% of the time) and the gnome only on a 20 (5% of the time). The gnome’s chance of success is 1/5 that of the warrior’s.
If it’s a DC 15, the warrior succeeds on a 10 or higher and the gnome a 15 or higher. Here the warrior’s chance of success is 50% and the gnome’s is 25%. The gnome’s chance of success is ½ that of the warrior’s.
Maybe it’s just me, but the idea that a big hulking warrior can try to shove a door open and fail only to have this itty-bitty gnome come up and push it open – just strikes me as totally unrealistic (in the world where dragons breathe fire and wizards casts real spells).
A Bell Curve
If I were going to make an adjustment (as I’ve suggested elsewhere), I might try using a bell curve instead of a linear curve (I think those are the right terms). Basically, rather than roll a single d20 for the Strength check, roll 2d10 and add them, instead. You have a 1 in 100 to get a 20, 3 in 100 to get a 19 or higher, and so on.
This would make the astonishing ridiculousness of the gnome’s feat of absurd luck/strength, whatever, significantly more difficult.
In case one where the DC is 20, the warrior succeeds on a 15 or higher. I think that’s still 25% – (nope, I think it’s 21%) although my math skills are not as trustworthy as they used to be. But the gnome’s chance is 1%. Big difference.
Hmmm. I did this by hand, so I could be wrong, but for the DC 15, the gnome has a 21% and the warrior has a 66%. Is that more realistic? I’m not sure. The gnome can still pull off the ridiculous feat, but it’s just more difficult for her. I might also consider a modification based on the size of the character. The gnome being size small whereas the warrior is size medium.
Conclusion
In the end, as it’s just a silly fantasy game anyway, it’s probably not worth changing. It would probably make the system unnecessarily complex, because there are definitely situations where you want the linear curve and flopping back and forth between the two could be problematic.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for this week. (I know, I missed a week. And a day. Oh well.)
The Wizard's Inkwell 