(12-09-2010 03:43 PM)soundguy Wrote: [ -> ]it's one thing to say the odds of a 5 or 6 rolling is 16% for either.. or 32 for a 5+ but when you need 2 dice to do that, at the same time.. you skew the odds lower
(11-26-2010 07:52 PM)mqstout Wrote: [ -> ]Outcomes for 2d3: 2,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6
I listed all possible outcomes for 2d3. 3 of the 9 possible outcomes are 5 or 6, for 1/3. 4+, as you'll notice, is 6/9=2/3.
All possible outcomes for 1d6: 1,2,3,4,5,6. Which is 2/6=1/3. 4+ is 3/6=1/2.
rolling a single 6 is different odds than rolling a 6, followed by rolling another 6.
i'm thinking more like .16 x .16 to roll any specific number, then roll that number again ( ie.. have that number roll up on BOTH dice )
soundguy
But, Soundguy, it's not rolling the same number on both. It's rolling a 5 OR 6 on one die, followed by either a 5 OR 6 on the other. You don't need doubles. You can roll two 5s, a 5 and a 6, or two 6s to get a result of 6 on 2D3.
In other words, a 1/3 chance times a 1/3 chance. A chance of 1-in-9... which is exactly what mgstout pointed out.
i didn't see him mention a 1 in 9.. .. I saw mention of much more.
I had been thinking about it last night ad you are correct.. it's not a .16 x .16 since 2 numbers on each die will work.. thus a .32 x .32 .. that's alot lower than the .5 and .66 chances I saw listed earlier.
I'm highlighting 5+ (not just a six) and 4+. The numbers needed for survival tactics and barricading. This is still the array of ALL possible outcomes of rolling 2d3: 2,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6.
so then .33
i totally missed the 1/3 in those posts. my eyes were only seeing .5 and .66 stuff.
after a re-read I see it now.
on the subject of 2d3.. anyone actually using d3? vs a d6?
soundguy
Howabout just physically substituting different dice?
D4s really suck to physically roll with, but if you are trying to limit the randomness of a given roll I've found that sometimes it's just a simple as changing the dice. It's much easier to do in some games than others. This game would require a lot of thought put into various things by doing this. WAY more thought if you're talking more than just movement (chances to lose a weapon, when the cleaver insta-kills, etc.), but with just using a d4 for movement alone, i think it would work just fine. It still keeps the possibility of tossin' a 1, but it would limit the heroes ability to totally escape confinement so easily.
Definitely some balance issues to consider: Zombies get stronger (obviously), that kid that gets +1 to move is suddenly much cooler, "heavy rain" is way stronger, etc.
(11-26-2010 12:57 PM)dungeonlord Wrote: [ -> ]Well the luck really seems to be an important factor. I was wondering if some of the reason that cause this can be eliminated or at least decreased:
-movement can be made as a 1+1d3. In this way the average remain as throwing 1d6 but there is less variation.
1+1d3 has a different average to 1d6. As does 2d3.
average(1+1d3) = 3
average(1d6) = 3.5
average(2d3) = 4
If you want the same average you then try (1+d4), or (d2+d3)
The zombie player will be badly hurt by any approach that increases movement and also by any approach that removes rolls of 1 from the game. (Having the players occasionally fail to outrun zombies is kind of improtant).
ditto that. fast hero's stay away from zeds..
I would suggest splitting the Hero deck into 4 parts and set each part on each corner of the L boards, and any Hero searching a building from that board draws from that pile.
There would still be a Luck factor. But it will help distribute the cards through the game rather than relying on your initial first Shuffle.