Skip to main content

Superheroes, Tiny and Mathematical

I'm enjoying my time with the TinySupers. It's simple enough to learn on the fly, but flexible enough to model a variety of different activities. The light, elegant mechanics have really freed up my imagination, making game-prep easier with better results. However, I've been feeling that it is entirely too easy for players to gain Advantage on nearly every roll. So I typed over to anydice to see how big a problem this is.

(Tiny d6 in a teeny-tiny nutsehell: roll 2 d6, count 5's or 6's as successes. Disadvantage: roll 1d6. Advantage: 3d6. If you spend time to Focus on an action, count 4, 5, and 6 as successes.)

Here are your chances of failing the various types of rolls in Tiny d6:

Tiny Supers Odds

Test % Chance of Failure
Disadvantaged Test 66.6666666667
Normal Test 44.4444444444
Advantaged Test 29.6296296296
Focused Disadvantage 50
Focused Test 25
Focused Advantage 12.5
Marksman + Focused Advantage 3.7037037037


This looks pretty bad to me.

The worst roll you can make in the game, the Disadvantaged Test, has a 67% chance of failing, or a 1/3 chance of success—hardly a longshot. That's about where I would expect the Normal Test to be. The Normal Test, representing a person attempting an action with no particular expertise or strategic positioning, has a 44% chance of failure, well less than half. From there, between the ease of gaining Advantage and the number of abilities that grant Focus, failure becomes a remote possibility.

It's pretty well established that failure drives engagement in games. You want failure to be prominent enough that the successes feel significantly rewarding. In video games, 80% is often thrown around as a benchmark for how often a player can fail. More and they may get frustrated. Less, and they may get bored. This doesn't translate directly to ttrpgs, of course, where a lot of the failure-engagement occurs when players explore and strategize and position before they roll the dice. And not all rolls are the same. Combat rolls should have a higher rate of failure, because one can roll several times in a combat. Skill checks should have less swing, because one will typically only roll once.

I say, this looks bad, but is it? But the game hasn't felt broken—just a smidge too easy. I'd be fine continuing to play the game as it has run for the past couple sessions. However, my players made their characters without knowing the system at all. If they were harboring thoughts of optimization (which, no judgement. It's hard not to), they weren't familiar enough with the system to do it well. I think second-generation characters may have a startling easy time.

Take the last item on the table. "Marksman + Focused Advantage" involves a Trait that lets Focused ranged attacks succeed on results of 3, 4, 5, or 6. Weapon Mastery in a ranged weapon gives one Advantage on every shot. The Tier 3 Blast super-power gives you Focus on your ranged attack. You then have a guaranteed 96.3% chance of success all day long. That's maybe one failure per campaign. Combat isn't everything. But I think a lot of players (especially younger ones) will have a hard time resisting the temptation to build gushing firehouses of damage.

I hope to keep using Tiny d6 for long-term play. I really like TinySupers, and I've been poring through a copy of TinyTaverns with much interest, and I'm very curious to check out their space opera game, TinyFrontiers. I don't want my players to get bored with the system after a glut of easy successes.

Let's try this: What if only 6's count as success? Focus gives you 5 and 6, and Marksman Focus gives you 4, 5, and 6. That looks like this:

Tiny Supers 6-Only Odds

Test % Chance of Failure
Disadvantaged Test 83.3333333333
Normal Test 69.4444444444
Advantaged Test 57.8703703704
Focused Disadvantage 66.6666666667
Focused Test 44.4444444444
Focused Advantage 29.6296296296
Marksman + Focused Advantage 12.5


For the most part, that looks better to me. Maybe too harsh? Focus and Advantage, in particular, feel a bit anemic.

What if we go back to the regular success range, but upgrade the die size?

Tiny Supers d8 Odds

Test % Chance of Failure
Disadvantaged Test 75
Normal Test 56.25
Advantaged Test 42.1875
Focused Disadvantage 62.5
Focused Test 39.0625
Focused Advantage 24.4140625
Marksman + Focused Advantage 12.5


Oh dang, that might be the porridge Goldilocks ate! (Not great for the branding of the Tiny d6 system, however.)

But do I know what I'm talking about? Absolutely not. I can't put much stock in my sense of what "looks right." Gallant Knight Games doubtlessly did plenty of play-testing before choosing the mathematical undergirdings they did. Still, It's interesting to see the numbers, and I'll be thinking about this as we play out the rest of the current mini-campaign.

As mentioned above, combat can support more failure than other parts of game-play. Maybe the d8's need to come out when we're in Initiative?

If you have played Tiny d6, I'd love to hear about your experiences with success and failure. If you're Alan Bahr, or someone else who has designed in the d6 space, I'd be eager to hear your thoughts on the topic, too.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Knaves, fancypants

I've prepared a new layout document of Ben Milton's Knaves . Knaves is a great, light rules set that has an extremely elegant core mechanic while retaining total compatibility with OSR material. It's pretty much the rpg of my dreams. This document contains the complete rules, plus a bunch of useful hacks from the community, plus a few of my invention, plus some useful resources from Ben Milton's previous effort, Maze Rats . EDIT: I've updated the layout to fix errata and make a few tweaks. Further, I've made 3 variations: KNAVES TABLET LAYOUT The Tablet Layout is meant for scrolling on screens, and contains hyperlinks. KNAVES SPREAD LAYOUT The Spread Layout is set up to print on Letter-sized paper. KNAVES A4 LAYOUT The A4 Layout is set up to print on A4 paper, and is probably the most elegant of the three versions. This is presented with generous permission from Ben Milton, and should in no way be an excuse for not purchasing a copy of Knav
14 comments
Read more

Maze Rats by Post

In my previous post , I reviewed a bunch of my favorite rulesets for optimization for Play-by-Post. It occurred to me almost immediately that I hadn't really thought about Maze Rats enough. In fact, I'd mis-remembered and mischaracterized it. Upon reflection, one of the mechanics I took issue with is actually a big strength. Re-reading the rules, it seems like just a few very simple hacks could make it a highly-optimized PbP game. As follows: Danger Rolls are rolled by the GM. Danger rolls usually fail, so it is in the player’s interest to describe their actions plausibly and mitigate as many risks as they can, in the hopes that they don’t trigger a danger roll. 2d6 + ability bonus ≥ 10 If you have taken enough precautions to have a distinct advantage in an action, but not enough to have eliminated the distinct possibility of danger, the GM will give you a roll with advantage. 3d6 keep 2 + ability bonus ≥ 10 Because each character only has 3 ability scores (S
1 comment
Read more

Reviewing Rules for Play-by-Post Optimization

I’ve played a lot of PbP games: all your favorite flavors of OD&D, AD&D, and their retroclones, Call of Cthulhu, Marvel Superheroes, Traveller, Dungeon World, etc. ad nauseam. In almost every instance, I forgot what ruleset we were using at some point. Which is a good thing. Once chargen is over, you spend a lot more time describing your characters actions and poring over the GM’s descriptions than you spend interacting with rules. When you do roll, it’s usually a combat to-hit roll, which you’ve probably programmed into the online dice-roller as a macro. Pretty much any game will work for PbP. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t points of possible optimization. Point 1: Resolution. Anything that can keep the action moving is a boon to PbP. A game that requires a back-and-forth exchange of information to resolve an action is going to progress very slowly. A good rule of thumb is that it’ll take 2 or 3 days to get a response from any given player. At that pace, an exch
Post a Comment
Read more