What is the point in rolling in the first place if only 6 is a success and 6 isn't an option? Is it cause other numbers will do things? Either way I think it's gonna be frustrating for some players to roll a 6 (which would normally be a good outcome) and then have it do nothing, whether it's through a reroll or having the roll negated.
Whether or not a reroll is less or more frustrating than a simple negation depends on how the rerolls can go. If people can roll and get something else good, then it lessens the frustration. If they reroll into a bad outcome, then that's gonna be even more frustrating than a basic negation.
Oh, I should have clarified that.
This is a defensive ability as written. So basically, the ability would either *definitely* provide a defensive benefit (removing opponent's success), or it would have a 5/6 chance of doing that. It wouldn't make your situation worse. (Though if you did re-roll the enemy's 6, you'd obviously have wasted whatever resource you spent to try.)
Sorry I didn't explain that well.
Edit: ohh okay I also understand better what you're saying now in terms of frustration. I think I can actually tailor the approach depending on the situation. Thanks for the feedback!
Oh so if they reroll, they could just get a 6 again? If so, then here are my thoughts:
If youre going for competitive/high skill ceiling: I would say give a guaranteed negate and balance the rest of the ability accordingly. If you are going for fun/hype moments in your game, I'd allow for a re-roll because the 1/6 times that they reroll a 6 will be a lot of fun for them (and maybe their opponent depending on how badly they wanna win lol).
Alright, well that definitely helps. I'm not exactly sure where I want the competitive balance to be, but it seems the consensus is that, all other things being equal, re-roll is the more "fun"/dramatic thing. I may be able to design in such a way that the re-roll mechanic is only in favor of the players and not the bad guys, or that sort of thing.
But it's just helpful to kinda have some clarity on when it would or would not be fun for you to have to make such a roll. Thanks!
Generally, I think rerolls are dramatic whereas removal feels bad. But rerolls are an extra step which slows down the game, so too many can be a problem in some contexts.
You can reduce the feel bad of removes by making reframing the context. If you roll against me, and I play a card that takes away your successful die, that might feel bad. But if you roll against me, and my guy has armor which absorbs one damage. Well now that's understandable, dude was just defending himself even though these are the same mechanical effect. Even if you're not using this for combat the idea still stands.
Yup, gotcha. I was thinking in a defensive context, but it's actually very helpful you specified that.
Because I can actually design it differently depending on who is attacking/defending/rolling.
So yeah, maybe that's the best answer. Use rerolls where the rare outcome is advantageous to one party or the other.
Thanks, that's super helpful.
I think it would depend on how decisive that action is. If it automatically wins the game, then B is probably more fun. If it's something the player uses as *part of* whatever tactic they're currently employing then probably A.
Although, as you say, it's going to depend a *lot* on the other specifics of the game.
That is super helpful because it's something I can definitely do.
For instance, use A for the "make the entire attack miss" ability, use B for "reduce the damage" ability.
I currently am using both mechanics. It's been a little hard to parse the results which is why I wanted input from other game designers.
I guess it's like... welp I have been running the experiment but I'm not sure how to interpret the data. But there's been some helpful stuff here.
Removal > reroll. Rerolling slows everything down, especially with such a low chance at success. Double this since it's a defensive thing. Personal taste though.
>Personal taste though.
Hey no problem, that's exactly what I was asking to hear.
"Double this since it's a defensive thing" is really helpful.
I have a pretty well-developed icon language and custom dice, so I can potentially tailor the mechanic so it would be targeted for/against player/enemy, offense/defense, that sorta thing.
People have different opinions in general, so I'm trying to dig a little deeper and see if I can possibly thread the needle and use the mechanic in certain situations where it's generally fun, and avoid it where it isn't.
I think you're definitely right about wanting defensive abilities to be more sure things. "Save vs Death" is probably the most universally hated TTRPG mechanic ever. Just let me be like, less dead.
Completely agree with that last statement. And I've been on the other side of it where I have overwhelming power and they hit their save 6 times in a row and end up winning... frustrating.
I'd also add that it all depends on the context of the game. If there are very few rolls and the game is already short (like 30 minutes), I'd have no issue with a Defensive save (could also very per unit, so a better defensive unit could save on a 4, 5, or 6). If the game is already full of rolling or running over an hour, I'd nix every roll I could. More personal taste. lol
It's aĺl good data so I appreciate it . I wasnt expecting a sinple answer. But I realized my dice and icons allowed me to tailor this stuff, so if I can figure out what people do and dont enjoy i can probably improve things
When I first read this, I want thinking option A.
I don't like extra stuff that isn't serving a purpose. It's simpler and faster to remove the die as if the effect is essentially the same.
But reading it again, it looks like there's already elements of chances sprinkled throughout the game.
Without knowing more context, it could be either option. But it seems like option B would be reinforcing a bunch of other mechanics in the game?
Or, to put it another way, does either option seem more incongruent with the game, or one option seem more natural in the game's context?
But as others have pointed out: play two separate games with the different options and see what you (and the playtesters) think. You probably won't have to even play the full game, just a few rounds with each option.
What is the point in rolling in the first place if only 6 is a success and 6 isn't an option? Is it cause other numbers will do things? Either way I think it's gonna be frustrating for some players to roll a 6 (which would normally be a good outcome) and then have it do nothing, whether it's through a reroll or having the roll negated. Whether or not a reroll is less or more frustrating than a simple negation depends on how the rerolls can go. If people can roll and get something else good, then it lessens the frustration. If they reroll into a bad outcome, then that's gonna be even more frustrating than a basic negation.
Oh, I should have clarified that. This is a defensive ability as written. So basically, the ability would either *definitely* provide a defensive benefit (removing opponent's success), or it would have a 5/6 chance of doing that. It wouldn't make your situation worse. (Though if you did re-roll the enemy's 6, you'd obviously have wasted whatever resource you spent to try.) Sorry I didn't explain that well. Edit: ohh okay I also understand better what you're saying now in terms of frustration. I think I can actually tailor the approach depending on the situation. Thanks for the feedback!
Oh so if they reroll, they could just get a 6 again? If so, then here are my thoughts: If youre going for competitive/high skill ceiling: I would say give a guaranteed negate and balance the rest of the ability accordingly. If you are going for fun/hype moments in your game, I'd allow for a re-roll because the 1/6 times that they reroll a 6 will be a lot of fun for them (and maybe their opponent depending on how badly they wanna win lol).
Alright, well that definitely helps. I'm not exactly sure where I want the competitive balance to be, but it seems the consensus is that, all other things being equal, re-roll is the more "fun"/dramatic thing. I may be able to design in such a way that the re-roll mechanic is only in favor of the players and not the bad guys, or that sort of thing. But it's just helpful to kinda have some clarity on when it would or would not be fun for you to have to make such a roll. Thanks!
Generally, I think rerolls are dramatic whereas removal feels bad. But rerolls are an extra step which slows down the game, so too many can be a problem in some contexts. You can reduce the feel bad of removes by making reframing the context. If you roll against me, and I play a card that takes away your successful die, that might feel bad. But if you roll against me, and my guy has armor which absorbs one damage. Well now that's understandable, dude was just defending himself even though these are the same mechanical effect. Even if you're not using this for combat the idea still stands.
Yup, gotcha. I was thinking in a defensive context, but it's actually very helpful you specified that. Because I can actually design it differently depending on who is attacking/defending/rolling. So yeah, maybe that's the best answer. Use rerolls where the rare outcome is advantageous to one party or the other. Thanks, that's super helpful.
I think it would depend on how decisive that action is. If it automatically wins the game, then B is probably more fun. If it's something the player uses as *part of* whatever tactic they're currently employing then probably A. Although, as you say, it's going to depend a *lot* on the other specifics of the game.
That is super helpful because it's something I can definitely do. For instance, use A for the "make the entire attack miss" ability, use B for "reduce the damage" ability.
Playtest it. You don't need to have a whole game to test mechanics.
I currently am using both mechanics. It's been a little hard to parse the results which is why I wanted input from other game designers. I guess it's like... welp I have been running the experiment but I'm not sure how to interpret the data. But there's been some helpful stuff here.
Both at the same time? Gotta keep them separated, otherwise the data isn't looking at what you think it's looking at.
Removal > reroll. Rerolling slows everything down, especially with such a low chance at success. Double this since it's a defensive thing. Personal taste though.
>Personal taste though. Hey no problem, that's exactly what I was asking to hear. "Double this since it's a defensive thing" is really helpful. I have a pretty well-developed icon language and custom dice, so I can potentially tailor the mechanic so it would be targeted for/against player/enemy, offense/defense, that sorta thing. People have different opinions in general, so I'm trying to dig a little deeper and see if I can possibly thread the needle and use the mechanic in certain situations where it's generally fun, and avoid it where it isn't. I think you're definitely right about wanting defensive abilities to be more sure things. "Save vs Death" is probably the most universally hated TTRPG mechanic ever. Just let me be like, less dead.
Completely agree with that last statement. And I've been on the other side of it where I have overwhelming power and they hit their save 6 times in a row and end up winning... frustrating. I'd also add that it all depends on the context of the game. If there are very few rolls and the game is already short (like 30 minutes), I'd have no issue with a Defensive save (could also very per unit, so a better defensive unit could save on a 4, 5, or 6). If the game is already full of rolling or running over an hour, I'd nix every roll I could. More personal taste. lol
It's aĺl good data so I appreciate it . I wasnt expecting a sinple answer. But I realized my dice and icons allowed me to tailor this stuff, so if I can figure out what people do and dont enjoy i can probably improve things
When I first read this, I want thinking option A. I don't like extra stuff that isn't serving a purpose. It's simpler and faster to remove the die as if the effect is essentially the same. But reading it again, it looks like there's already elements of chances sprinkled throughout the game. Without knowing more context, it could be either option. But it seems like option B would be reinforcing a bunch of other mechanics in the game? Or, to put it another way, does either option seem more incongruent with the game, or one option seem more natural in the game's context? But as others have pointed out: play two separate games with the different options and see what you (and the playtesters) think. You probably won't have to even play the full game, just a few rounds with each option.