What about FATAL would make it a good system to use in a video game?

Also if you asked this on /tg/ you might get some good answers, except it would probably also just be a bunch of hating on D&D despite the fact that there are tons of poplar games that use it. I like the generic D20 system KotOR used, and it's basically D&D, but I think other systems would be good. I just don't know much about any of them besides their names.

>>3906552
BG3 convinced me that the d20 system was fundamentally flawed and that a dice based system should always use a sum of multiple dice to approximate a normal distribution.

File: images.jpg (41 KB, 386x518)

41 KB JPG

>>3906528
By far the fuckiest of all WoD d10s and dots system.
Mage The Ascension
But the other weird ones like changeling the dreaming and wraith the oblivion.
Ars Magica along side that

The shadow run system needs new computer games

Shadow of the demon lord

Bring old Warhammer fantasy into roleplay into PC games.

DEGENESIS has a cult following and an interesting lore.

Lancer has been getting some attention

Traveller

Not a whole lot of Cthulhu RPGs

Paranoia had one game release recently. Mixed reviews.

A netrunner game would be cool.

Deadlands

***MUTANT CHRONICLES***- other than an awful SNES/Genesis side scroller and a DOA digital adaptation of the card game this IP I think needs more Vidya. Lots of potential with the lore.
So many board games, RPG, and tabletop wargames to draw from.

>>3906621
Genestealer in the back is sus

>>3906552
Japs are always jerking off to hentai games and they've yet to make an rpg so if we introduce FATAL they can just add it to their hentai games and make some rpgs.

>>3906683
There's some jap RPG system .
Kinda guto vibes.
It was about Frankenstein player characters that get new body parts.
I'm pretty sure /tg/ knows about it.
Necro is definitely in the name.
Apparently call of Cthulhu is popular in Japanese tttpg market.

>>3906552
>What about FATAL would make it a good system to use in a video game?
He just found out about it and thought it would be heckin wacky to make a post about it.

D&D 4e would be almost perfect for a BG3-esque RPG due to its tactical depth.

>>3906588
unironically thats what playing regular dnd does to you aswell.

>>3906528
>What tabletop systems would be cool to see adapted into videogames?
It would be really cool to have a superhero game with a ton of powers based on something like HERO or Mutants and Masterminds. Non-licensed superhero shit has been left weirdly untouched by video games as a whole

>>3906704
>Apparently call of Cthulhu is popular in Japanese tttpg market.
It's the most popular TTRPG in Japan, and it sells there better than it sells in any other country. They love their Call of Cthulhu.

>>3906704
Nechronica. Loli guro TTRPG

>>3906528
>squillions of CRPGs are founded on D&D
>no CRPGs are founded on Traveller
The genre is ossified beyond redemption.

>>3906588
>BG3 taught me d20 things
FFVI taught me that fixed dice are better than regular dice.

>>3906552
>>3906718
To point:
>"Roll for anal circumference."
is but one of them.

>>3906704
>Apparently call of Cthulhu is popular in Japanese tttpg market.
>>3906875
>It's the most popular TTRPG in Japan, and it sells there better than it sells in any other country. They love their Call of Cthulhu.
Horror and tentacles.

>>3906621
>Mage The Ascension
It would probably play like Disco Elysium.

That is to say it would be kino

>>3906852
Not really. That's what playing anything other than D&D then playing D&D teaches you. Only playing D&D creates corporate drones who will eat shit with a smile.

>>3906588
that's because crpgs are not ttrpgs
dice serve an important purpose in ttrpgs and that is to make surprising storytelling possible for both the players and the GM
>this is just a typical orc ambush, otherwise a filler trash-combat encounter
>the orc leader gets lucky dicerolls and crits 3 times in a row, downing the fighter
>now the party is captured by the orcs and has to figure out not only a way to escape but to make it in time for for the hostages they were traveling to save to still be alive
or
>the party meets a way overpowered enemy that was meant to scare them away
>they decide to heroically stand their ground in order to buy some time for the villagers to escape
>lucky rolls mean that they are actually successful with half the party dead and the other barely standing
>the dead get a heroic funeral and the living get cool scars and a legend of their own making
nah nothing wrong with d20 in ttrpgs
however in crpgs with bellcurvy dicepool systems you would still spergout about outlier rolls so nothing would actually meaningfully change

>>3908812
>however in crpgs with bellcurvy dicepool systems you would still spergout about outlier rolls so nothing would actually meaningfully change
No. It's the principle. An average result should not be equally as likely as a very poor, or an excellent, result.

>>3906621
>Mage The Ascension
This would be the one game that was least possible to make an adequate vidya adaptation of. I think Wraith actually did get a game but it was VR so no one gives a shit.

>>3906528
None, they generally suck without the actual improvised roleplay.

>>3908865
yeah really haven't put enough thought into it

yes the chances of getting a minimal/maximal result is going to be lower
but it doesn't make any difference, the thresholds for critical failure/success will just be shifted to happen 5% of the time or a comparable number anyway because you want it to be a meaningful probability, not just (1/6)^5 or whatever the amount of dice you are tossing, because why waste time on a base mechanic for something that is 0.0001 likely at all for starters, but also the player has to feel the risk being present, it's the slot-machine psychology thing, that's what people find exciting

>>3908881
>happen 5% of the time or a comparable number anyway
Why? Plenty of actual tabletop games have it at a lower (or higher) number when using different dice mechanics, if they even have crit fails at all. There's 0 reason to set the d20 probability distribution as the universal baseline. Are you insinuating that the only tabletop games that have had "any thought" put into their mechanics are exclusively DnD-derived d20 ones?

>>3906528
Aren't all complete bullshit?

>>3908876
>>3908958
ok then wiseguys how would you design spells, damage, and class systems that don't suck? What's so terrible about using the probability and distribution systems in ttrpgs?

>>3908954
>why
I already said why
because
a) why even include a rule at all if it only triggers on 0.00001 chance or whatever? Just omit it
b) you actually shouldn't omit it, you should make it more likely. there has to be a tangible chance of failure even in ez-pz scenarios and a tangible chance to succeed in dreadful scenarios. Otherwise the roll is not worth the time spent if there is so little uncertainty. Any competent GM just handwaves it as "no it's not possible, you failed" or "sure you do it, no need to roll"

>There's 0 reason to set the d20 probability distribution as the universal baseline.
there is actually a very good reason to use something that withstood the test of time as a baseline

>Plenty of actual tabletop games have it at a lower (or higher) number
yeah but it's still comparable to 5% and that's exactly what I'm saying

I'm going to do a part 2 with examples

>>3909031
examples
>VtM v5 -- Bestial failure on '1' on a hunger die
10% in case of a single hunger die already, twice as 5% but still comparable
>Shadowrun -- glitch on >= 1/2 of '1s' on a roll
a quick binomial distribution calculation gives me roughly 5% for a reasonable dicepool of 6
>The One Ring 2e
1/12 = roughly 8% for an automatic failure, comparable to 5%

notice that VtM v5 and tOR 2e both require a special condition for the rather large chance of "crit failure" to come into play at all, hunger in VtM and miserable in tOR

can you guess why?
because roughly 10% auto/crit failure for every roll is way too much and feels unfair

that's it
1% -- too rare of a thing to create tension
10% on every roll -- feels unfair
5% -- right in between

>>3909031
If you go that route there should be fewer rolls in general. When playing ttrpg you constantly throw dice, that's the real problem.

>>3909043
>If you go that route there should be fewer rolls in general.
correct
>When playing ttrpg you constantly throw dice, that's the real problem.
get a better GM, I mean it

>>3908981
I wasn't clear, meant all ttrpg rulesets are shit for vidya. If anything, you have to design it for vidya. Either take a ttrpg and make custom rules or live e with a wonky implementation. Imho dnd should design a computer version, instead of letting every other dev have his homebrew of dnd rulesets.

>>3909046
>get a better GM, I mean it
Obviously this ties in to story and it's telling and pacing aso. The best gm can make any system fun.

>>3909043
sameanon as >>3909046
PS
should have mentioned
you even have things like take10/20 in D&D and PF that are specifically designed to reduce the amount of rolls
even the rulebook is telling you, too much dice rolls is universally agreed to be a bad GMing style

>>3909050
No, lol

>>3906528
I'm genuinely surprised no porn RPG was ever made with the FATAL ruleset.

>>3909031
>why even include a rule at all if it only triggers on 0.00001 chance or whatever? Just omit it
Why be hyperbolic? Video games are full of low percentage effects because you're repeating actions hundreds if not 1000s of times over the course of the game.
>there has to be a tangible chance of failure even in ez-pz scenarios and a tangible chance to succeed in dreadful scenarios
DnD literally doesn't even do this, at least not in current edition. Outside of attacks a nat 20 or 1 doesn't guarantee failure or success
>Otherwise the roll is not worth the time spent if there is so little uncertainty. Any competent GM just handwaves it as "no it's not possible, you failed" or "sure you do it, no need to roll
Right, which is one reason you don't actually need to do it. Lots of systems also have caps on upper and lower bounds of success/modifier so if a roll is called there's always a chance of success/failure
>there is actually a very good reason to use something that withstood the test of time as a baseline
Multiple systems have withstood the test of time, and arguably bad parts of DnD have withstood the test of time. "It's old" and "it was first" are not good reasons on their own.

Anon's original point is you shouldn't roll the best/worst results too often, and non d20 games drastically change how often that is. If you're rolling 2d6 you're rolling average results far more consistently than you're rolling too high to conceivably fail or too low succeed. That's the point of it, you become more *consistent* in your roll results, you succeed a lot more at what you're good and do a lot worse at what you're bad at. That's the benefit compared vs a d20, even IF the chance of a crit fail remains 5% your overall chance of failing (critical or otherwise) is going to be more predictable.

File: 81vIPgjd-tL._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (150 KB, 886x1000)

150 KB JPG

>this entire thread
you are all cowards. real men play with d100, roll under rule.

File: 542x750.jpg (98 KB, 542x750)

98 KB JPG

>>3909087
Speaking of which I find it funny CoC is apparently huge in Japan. I guess it's them tentacles.

>>3909087
I don't have time to chance that thing around the room until it stops rolling.

>>3909041
>VtM 5e
Not really comparable. Firstly, you need to fail AND roll a 1, the probability of that will vary wildly depending on how many dice you have in your pool and the action's difficulty. And even given that, the moment you have more than one hunger die it stops being comparable to 5% because it's now much larger. Given it's a dice pool none of the rest of the game follows the flat distribution of a d20 so it's not really advocating for the same thing.
>Shadowrun
I've never played but from what I've read, a glitch isn't inherently a critical fail. You can glitch on a success for a success with a complication. For critical glitches you need to both fail the roll AND roll more than half your dice as 1's (in 5th edition, 4th and below it's just half or more) AND roll no hits. For a 6 die pool there's less than a 1% chance of having that, or just over 1% if you use half instead more than half, and from what I understand of the system it's far from impossible to be rolling more dice than that.

Which is actually another point against the d20, it doesn't allow for things like this where the chance of critical failure/success can change dynamically.

>>3909094
sadly no one really rolls a d100 these days. they substitute it with 2d10s.

>>3909085
>even IF the chance of a crit fail remains 5% your overall chance of failing (critical or otherwise) is going to be more predictable
lmao how exactly that is?
sorry, I didn't mean to sound too condescending, honest, but 5% means 5%
it doesn't matter what has to happen, a single die rolling a bone or several dice rolling whatever the threshold is
if it's 5% the likelihood of an occurrence is a motherfucking 5 per-%-cent

that's why I'm saying you haven't thought this through enough

I'm going to address the rest in a next post for the sake of completeness, but really this is the meat of the discussion

>>3909103
I think you underestimate how many times you're going to roll dice. Don't look at it on individual per-roll.

>>3909085
>Video games are full of low percentage effects
I'm just going to say outright I'm not interested in discussing online casinos like lootboxes, drop rates, etc.
in an ontopic games such as a single player CRPG you might see 1% effect, and the player is just going to reload a save if that is such an unfortunate event
so why have it at all? it doesn't mean there aren't any games with 1% effects on rolls, but any gamedesigner worth a damn will make it at least 3%
>DnD literally doesn't even do this,
the correct thing to say would be "doesn't do this outside of combat", yes that is correct, that's not dramatic enough
but it still does it in combat
>Lots of systems also have caps on upper and lower bounds of success/modifier so if a roll is called there's always a chance of success/failure
So? seems like you are actually proving my point that there must be some unpredictability in a roll for excitement, otherwise just don't roll
I'll take it
>"It's old" and "it was first" are not good reasons on their own.
Yeah well it's not about that is it? it's about the mechanics that were in DnD since the fucking 70s and never went away, so you know it's good it's doing something right. And you know what? crit miss/hit warstories are probably the number 1 popular D&D story.
So stop grasping straws, and admit already that D&D crits work.

>>3909103
>lmao how exactly that is?
>sorry, I didn't mean to sound too condescending, honest, but 5% means 5%
Because you can fail outside of critical fails, anon? On a 2d6 a 7 is more likely than any other result, on a d20 a 20 is as likely as a 5. The former is much more predictable for what I hope are obvious reasons. You're way too caught up on crits specifically.

I think you are the one who hasn't thought this through. Please just look at the distribution graphs for different resolution methods, I'm genuinely not sure how else to convey the concept of varying probability to you

>>3909094
>Not really comparable.
first of all 5% and 10% are comparable
it's not 10 times larger it's 2 times larger
you are right on the hunger die though
so for a fairly hard task of 50% success rate it will trigger roughly on 10% / 2 = 5%
wow would you look at that :^)
>shadowrun
that is a fair point.

>Which is actually another point against the d20, it doesn't allow for things like this where the chance of critical failure/success can change dynamically
It does actually. Chaosium d100 BRP-based systems do that. and that's just a d20 with more granularity, nothing is stopping you from doing the same on a d20

>>3909109
I think you don't understand probabilities

>>3909087
>FUCK your table

>>3909114
>and the player is just going to reload a save if that is such an unfortunate event
>so why have it at all?
Why would the same player not reload a 5% effect? If it's really that devastating a save scummer (not used in a derogatory way, people can play single player games however they want) will still save scum it unless the probability is really, really high such that a reload is unlikely to avoid it.
>correct thing to say would be "doesn't do this outside of combat
The next sentence literally specifies this? I can't tell if you're taking the piss.
>otherwise just don't roll
It doesn't "seem like" that, I DID agree with that. But you can do it without needing a d20 or using the d20's probabilities or having an explicit "critical" fail.
>Yeah well it's not about that is it
That's the argument though. Saying
>DnD since the fucking 70s and never went away, so you know it's good it's doing something right.
Is an appeal to its age and nothing else. L
>And you know what? crit miss/hit warstories are probably the number 1 popular D&D story.
And one of the most common mechanical criticisms levied at it. People laughing at Bethesda bugs is an iconic part of their games' legacies, doesn't mean I'm going to start adding bugs to everything.
>admit already that D&D crits work.
Not even the point trying to be made. Being technically functional and being something to aspire to are two different things

File: pbta.png (15 KB, 678x428)

15 KB PNG

>>3909115
>On a 2d6 a 7 is more likely than any other result, on a d20 a 20 is as likely as a 5
the probability of a specific result doesn't matter anon it just doesn't
what matters is the RANGE of results that make a fail or a success

the game design is still going to revolve around the idea that
an easy thing is roughly (ROUGHLY!) 75% success rate and above
a moderately challenging thing is roughly 50% success rate
and a hard thing is roughly a 25% success rate and below

let's look at a prominent 2d6 example
>PbtA
picrel

>>3909119
>first of all 5% and 10% are comparable
You're being respectful so I genuinely don't mean this in an insulting way, but you have poor reading comprehension. It's not comparable for all the reasons I stated immediately afterwards, your out of context example is technically comparable if you wish to draw the arbitrary line at 2x, but it's also out of context.
>trigger roughly on 10% / 2 = 5%
Yes. In this one specific example where you have just one hunger die (because if you have none your chance is literally 0) and your chance to succeed is exactly 50% you have the same probability as DnD, it's a good thing we ignore every other scenario in this game where the size of your pool varies wildly and the base chance of success distribution is nothing like the d20.
>does actually
No it doesn't. We're talking about the 5% scenario YOU are advocating for. It doesn't not dynamically change to being nothing like 5%.
>but in this other game with other mechanics it-
Okay so you are taking the piss

>>3909132
>the probability of a specific result doesn't matter anon it just doesn't
That's like high school knowledge...
>>3909127
If anything it shows that dnd is old af, no matter the edition. It's from the 70s and it certainly feels like it's form the 70s and streamlining it to 5e doesn't help. Old and outdated.

>>3909127
>Is an appeal to its age and nothing else
It's not, because D&D isn't static, it's under a constant process of man-made evolution
this is one the mechanics that no designer has changed in the multitude of editions because it does what it was designed to do and it does it good
that's what that argument is saying

it's the same if someone says that sharks are good at what they do since they stayed the same for millions of years without much evolving

Either you really can't tell or you are just stubborn
either way "I'm done here"

>>3909132
You realise the tighter range of the 2d6 is what makes it more consistent right? You get greater changes in success and failure rates. Getting good at something means you're much more consistently good at it and less prone to critical surprises. Players have modifiers, remember? Tending towards the same result makes modifiers more reliable and that combined with changes to the actual dice means a bad person is less likely to miraculously succeed than in games where a miraculous success occurs 5% of the time regardless of skill

>>3909074
I'm genuinely surprised /vrpg/ doesn't have regular corruption of champions or princess maker threads.

>>3909140
It's a terrible argument. Lots of things change over time, some get better and some get worse. DnD has been full to the brim with sacred cows and weird design decisions for years.
>no designer has changed in the multitude of editions because it does what it was designed to do and it does it good
DnD almost collapsed as a brand when it tried to change focus in 4e. Even if it were the most technically sound decision in the world, you'd have to be a moron of unbelievable proportions to try and change the mechanic that is almost synonymous with the brand and risk alienating longtime fans.

Random example: McDonald's tried changing the, I think it was quarter pounder to something larger and changed the name with it. They lost sales because were alienated and didn't "get it" even though it was technically a better deal. Shit like this happens all the time with longstanding brands.

No one said the d20 doesn't actually work. But it's ridiculous to tout it and its distribution as peak game design that should always be followed

>>3909143
no, anon, you don't realize
a threshold for success set at 58% on a d100
and a threshold for success set at 7 on a 2d6
are the same fucking thing in terms of rolling dice in a game the 0.33% difference isn't going to be realistically noticeable

it's not "more consistent"
you might more consistently roll close to the middle with 2d6, but that's not what rolling a success is
you get a 58% of success either way

>Players have modifiers, remember?
that's true, and tasks have difficulty modifiers to offset those lol
also effect of bonuses is another topic entirely
and also naturally in a 2d6 a +1/-1 is a much bigger deal
but still you get roughly a 10% boost to having a >7 with each +1

>>3909157
>and also naturally in a 2d6 a +1/-1 is a much bigger deal
meant to say due to granularity of the outcomes range

File: 29498658.jpg (226 KB, 697x905)

226 KB JPG

Instead of rolling one d20 why not 2?
It feels like you're handling bullshit testicles every time you roll.

>>3909150
>it's ridiculous to tout it and its distribution as peak game design that should always be followed
it's also ridiculous to build strawmen to "win" arguments
I never said it's peak gamedesign I started with
>there is actually a very good reason to use something that withstood the test of time as a baseline

>>3909132
>the probability of a specific result doesn't matter anon it just doesn't
Results in real life are not a scattershot. Asking people to treat die rolls as something other than how well they did regardless of whether something is binary pass/fail is never going to work because people don't work that way.

>>3909162
>ridiculous to build strawmen to "win" arguments
Like the one where I was told I said the d20 doesn't work?

>>3909114
D&D didn't have critical hits or misses for a very long time.

>>3909165
>Like the one where I was told I said the d20 doesn't work?
where have I said or implied that you said that?
it's like stramanning is a second nature to you
>>3909168
for how long exactly?
the Basic set most certainly had always miss on 1 and always hit on 20

>>3909174
Always hitting and always missing aren't crits. It was an optional rule at best until 3.0.

>>3909174
>said or implied that you said that?
It's implied in
>>>3909114
>and admit already that D&D crits work.
If that's not you, everyone has the same name on this basket weaving forum so people arguing the same point will be confused by default

>>3909179
>It's implied in
>>3909114 (You)
OK that's fair
though it's poor wording on my part, I meant works well

>>3909176
if you are going to hide behind trivialities there is no genuine discussion to be had on this topic
and no comparison between systems can be made
since most systems have something similar to crits but not crits exactly
in the context of the discussion D&D had crit miss/hit at least since the basic set

>>3909182
Those aren't trivialities. There's nothing special about rolling a 1 if rolling a 2 also fails in the same way, and nothing special about rolling a 20 if rolling a 19 is the same result. Critical hits and failures are special results more extreme than the norm.

>>3909150
>Random example: McDonald's tried changing the, I think it was quarter pounder to something larger and changed the name with it. They lost sales because were alienated and didn't "get it" even though it was technically a better deal.
IIRC it's because they changed it to the Third Pounder and the general public thought that a third was less than a quarter.

>>3909183
this entire chain of replies started with always having a chance to fail or succeed
>>3909031
>b) you actually shouldn't omit it, you should make it more likely. there has to be a tangible chance of failure even in ez-pz scenarios and a tangible chance to succeed in dreadful scenarios. Otherwise the roll is not worth the time spent if there is so little uncertainty. Any competent GM just handwaves it as "no it's not possible, you failed" or "sure you do it, no need to roll"
it's exactly what is already in the basic set
you are hiding behind trivialities

Anima: Beyond Fantasy would be pure kino

>>3909041
No, the chance of a glitch in Shadowrun at a dice pool of 6, which is also the kind of pool you throw around on a backup skill you have to not completely eat shit if you get caught off guard, is 0.00463%. A critical glitch is 0.00061%. Dice pool of 1 is 16.6%, dice pool of 2 is 11.11%, dice pool of 3 is 1.2%. Glitches only happen on skills you're defaulting on a bad stat on.

>>3907885
>no CRPGs are founded on Traveller
there was 2 games back in day

>>3909168
5% critical miss/success is just idiotic

gumshoe system/gumshoe one-on-one. CYOA/RPG but with mechanical limits to the narrative choices. characters do things as long as they still have spends available. a single d6 + ability pool for when failure exists or don't want to spend a narrative point.

>>3908981
Shut the fuck up faggot, also what >>3909048 said.

File: 99% is not guaranteed to hit.jpg (123 KB, 495x763)

123 KB JPG

>>3909041
>1% -- too rare of a thing to create tension

>>3910455
it looks like you forgot your post, anon
what's your point

>>3910493
All edge, no point

File: EVERYONE_IS_JOHN.png (415 KB, 1200x1631)

415 KB PNG

>>3906528
With among us and other social online games. I think an everyone is John game would be pretty cool.
Though there was a boardgame company that made a boardgame version of it not too long ago and it came under fire.

>>3906621
>MUTANT CHRONICLES
This
40k meets cyberpunk with no modern gay shit on top
Would make a great crpg or rts

>>3911834
>with no modern gay shit on top
What developer wouldn’t do this?

>>3908812
both the d20 and 3d6 bell curve are gay and unsatisfying.

dicepool systems are cooler

>>3906683
Anon, Japan has its own TTRPG industry. It's of course pretty niche, but we've gotten plenty of their games translated either officially or by fans. A few off the top of my head:
>Double Cross — Japanese X-Men, but you're at risk of corrupting into the monster of the week
>Ryuutama — cozy adventures where locales on your journey are generates as a party and travel RNG is probably more brutal than combat in most systems
>Kamigakari — urban fantasy shounen action melting pot game
>Tenra Bansho Zero — kabuki theater-styled science fantasy where you go in planning the coolest and most dramatic way for your PC to go out
>Nechronica — post-apoc zombie loli guro game, shockingly hopeful actually
>Tokyo NOVA — thematically Japanese Shadowrun, but mechanically styled as a 90s cyberpunk OVA simulator. Uses tarot and poker cards
>Sword World — basically Japanese take on D&D, but sticking to the heart of being a bunch of dipshits exploring dungeons
>Stellar Knights — Revolutionary Girl Utena simulator without trying to be subversive like Thirsty Sword Lesbians
>Princess Wing — card-based mecha musume game that's structured to play out like an episodic magical girl show, but actual combat rapidly turns into figuring out Yu-Gi-Oh-tier combo interactions
>Dracurouge — post-apoc sparkly vampire game where both social combat and real combat is resolved through the same mechanics
>Golden Sky Stories — think the wholesome parts of Natsume Yuujinchou, you're a bunch of animal yokai trying to sneakily help out folk in a sleepy countryside village
>Ventangle — Japanese Shadowrun, but a shitload edgier and smuttier, with a progression system based around being able to actually pay for your cybergear maintence or get sold off into a whorehouse until you pay off debts

>>3906797
Honestly you could pretty faithfully adapt D&D 4e with just RPGMaker and some SRPG plugins.

>>3911836
>>3911834
Every modern revival of mutant chronicles is dead in the water
Warzone eternal, RPG dropped by mophidius. Card game.

I do love the whole corporate warfare angle mutant chronicles has.

>>3911916
A simplified version, sure.

>>3911916
4E has too many conditionals to be a smooth game when faithfully adapted.

>>3911911
? It's minimal, isn't it?
>>3911955
Are there good mutant chronicles vidya?

>>3906552
in F.A.T.A.L every action and variable is a randomized dice roll and is boring to play as a result, it works for lifeweb

>>3912125
Only Vidya is DoomTrooper for SNES and Genesis(?) it's a very jank side scroller.
Not very fun.
There's also an online adaptation of the mutant chronicles ccg "DoomTrooper" on steam that is still in beta and is pretty much a dead game.

>>3912932
Has a 5/5 rating, but looks abysmal.

>>3909087
This could be the official roll of 4chan if that 100 changed to a 00.

>>3915370
What do you think 18/00 strength was?

>>3915384
18100+00=almost 19

>>3906588
I really dont get this
Wether It is 1d20 or two or three dice to better simulate a normal distribution, It doesnt matter at all if probabilities are well calibrated.
A 5% chance is a 5% chance in a D20 or in a 3d6 roll.

>>3915405
Probabilities are not arbitrarily set. You are, wrongly, assuming that someone thinks 'oh this should be a 5% chance'.

>>3915405
1d20 = 5% 1, 5% 20
3d6 = 0% 1, 0% 20

>>3915405
>% chance is a 5% chance
Has little to do with
>>3915405
>D20 or in a 3d6 roll.
See
>>3915422
First glance I'd say they are really similar.