What is a good alternative to dice pool count success system? I like how the attributes/stats have more effect than a +1,+2,+3 etc
shameless self bump
>>48280178
F/U has a system where you only pick the best out of a pool rather than counting up successes. More dice means better odds of a good pick. Unless you have 'negative dice' in which case you're taking the worst result.
Someone pitched an idea here a while back about a d6 system where you took your highest result and if you roll multiple 6s, each adds another +1 to the total. So a roll of 6, 6, 6 is actually an 8. Not sure of the math on this one, but it sounds like an interesting twist on exploding dice.
Risus has a system where more skill simply give you more d6 dice to add up. It's not a pool so much as a summation. But it has a weakness that your rolls wind up always floating around a set point, where checks above that quickly become impossible and those below it are trivial.
I've seen a couple 2d6 systems that had a simple degree of success mechanic for low/mid/high rolls. So 7-9 was partial success, 10+ complete success, and <7 is failure. These systems usually have the typical +1, +2, +3 type modifiers, though.
>>48282121
>Someone pitched an idea here a while back about a d6 system where you took your highest result and if you roll multiple 6s, each adds another +1 to the total. So a roll of 6, 6, 6 is actually an 8. Not sure of the math on this one, but it sounds like an interesting twist on exploding dice.
I saw a homebrew on here once that did something like this, except it used d4 to d12, which was your attribute score and the skill you used was how many dice you got to roll.
Seemed cool, but I haven't seen it for a long time now.
>>48282897
So your attribute determined your maximum roll and your skill determined your odds of rolling well along that range?
That.. might make sense. Like, a scientist with d8 intelligence but 5 dice for being experienced won't ever pull off a work of genius, but will pretty consistently pull off something in the 6-8 range.
>>48283680
Right, it was like that. It was a medieval setting, but I can't remember what it was called.
>>48283760
Hmm, but on second thought it seems a bit weird when the stats are mismatched. Like a burly novice would slap around the senior swordsman a decent amount of time just for rolling well on his single d10 against several d6 care of the strength difference alone.
>>48284309
Maybe, I'd have to see the game again. I mean, if the scope is from d4 to d12, then the difference between d6 and d10 might be like an average person vs a fit jock. Idk about the odds you've got with more dice, but I'd think the jock could be expected to get the upper hand once in a while. All depends on how often those rolls happen during a fight.
>>48280178
The system in Wulin and ORE is pretty fun.
The gist that you have a dicepool (based on your stats depending on which exact system) but don't just count up successes, you look for pairs/trios/etc of dice and group them. Then you pick the best group, which may vary by situation. In ORE the size of the group and the size of the die matter for different things, in Wulin they just add up (and are then modified by skills).
There are also extra things to do with dice - in ORE you have abilities that let you declare some dice before rolling the rest; or reroll some. In Wulin you can use several sets from your roll to do multiple actions and store dice from your roll to use later.
So for example, in Wulin lets say that I have 10, 4 and 9 stored and then roll 9, 7, 5, 6, 3, 9, 2.
The only pair in the roll I have gives me 29 as the only set so it's not a very lucky roll, but I can boost it to 39 if I have to, which is a pretty good action result. I could also try to do something with singular dice, like 17 or 16, but that's pretty low so not much is going to work.
>>48286018
Oh also Marvel Heroic is interesting.
You assemble a handful of dice in different sizes by picking what's appropriate from different sections of your charsheet (sections include: "how well you work in a group", your superpowers and your skills; so for example if you're with a buddy you have a d10, you have top tier super strength so it's a d12 and you're pretty good at cqc so that's d8), then you roll them.
Then you select which die to be your accuracy roll and which to be your effect roll. The trick is that for accuracy the rolled value matters while for effect only the size of the die matters and the rolled value it had is ignore.
So if you roll d10: 7, d8: 8 and d12: 6 it's straightforward to pick 8 for accuracy and d12 for effect.
But if it's instead d6: 6, d8: 5 and d12: 12, you gotta think: do you take lower accuracy of 6 for big payoff of 12 if it hits, or do you take sure hit of 12 and pick d8 for effect.
>>48286208
I've played some MHRP, and you take up to 3 dice ouside of some special situations- one is the 'effect die' whose size determines the scale, while the other two are totaled and creates a 'score' of sorts. A higher score means you succeed better and might be able to raise the intensity of your action, but a higher intensity basically shows you your scale. You always have to take one score die (the effect die is a d4 in that case), if you have two you have to choose which one is which, and none of them can be a a roll of one.
>>48284309
Here's an idea I thought of. Say the old man has 5 dice and the rookie has 2.
The old man can sacrifice 2 dice to remove 1 from the rookie, or 3 dice to remove one from the rookie and force the rookie to take the lower of two rolls. The rookie then rolls about a 3-4 on average, while the old man rolls that already with one die and will usually beat his opponent. If the rookie had 3 dice and the old man 6, the old man could pay 3 to remove 2 or 5 to remove 3 (forcing the rookie to re-roll because he doesn't have any more dice to cough up). So with 6-3 v 3-2, the old man rolls a 5 or 6 over 70% of the time, while the rookie rolls a 5 60% of the time and a 6 50%.
This doesn't work when their skills are close (as it shouldn't), but when there's a significant difference it can tip the scale, even slightly. You could also offer the opportunity to burn dice for a flat +1, which may or may not be as effective. Or maybe you could sacrifice 2d6->d6+d4 treated as one die, putting the old man on slightly better footing against the young blood.
2d8-> d8+d6, 2d10 as d10+d8, 2d12 as d12+d10.
>>48286018
Dice pools full systems are great for doing 'gimmicky stuff' because adding and removing dice is a lot more tactile then simply adding a penalty or bonus.
A good example of this is multiple actions in the new world of darkness. If you want to take multiple actions, you roll out what you are lower at then divide the dice accordingly for what you're focusing on.
Considering how bad storyteller mechanic suck it really needs to be emphasised what a simple way it is to do it.
>>48283760
Knights and Knaves
>>48282121
>Someone pitched an idea here a while back about a d6 system where you took your highest result and if you roll multiple 6s, each adds another +1 to the total. So a roll of 6, 6, 6 is actually an 8. Not sure of the math on this one, but it sounds like an interesting twist on exploding dice.
Sounds like the core dice mechanic of Silhouette. Dream Pod 9's own system used for Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles and a couple more.
>>48287182
Oh shit, yeah, that's the one! I really didn't think anyone would know what I was talking about. Thank you!
>>48286018
That sounds interesting. Could it be modified to work with d6 pools?
is this mechanic good?
attributes = successes
skills = number of d6
skills+attributes > DC
>>48290826
Maybe. Depends how easy it is to get a lot of dice. It seems backwards to me, with attributes being static and skills being random.
How about:
Attributes + Skills = number of d6, only 6 succeeds
Skills also give bonus points to add after a roll, so you can bump die results up to 6.
For example, with an attribute of 5 (average) and a skill of 4, you roll: [6] [5] [4] [4] [3] [3] [2] [1] [1] sorted.
You have 4 bonus points. You spend 1 on that [5] to make it a [6], and 2 more on a [4] to make it a [6], but your last remaining bonus point isn't enough to bump up the other [4] all the way.
The result of this roll is 3 successes.
I just came up with that in two minutes.
>>48291327
Looks neat, but inst 5 dice average a lot? or is it the norm whit dice pools?
>>48292556
With 5d6, you have a slightly under 60% chance of rolling at least one [6], and a slightly under 20% chance of rolling at least two. There is no norm.
Also note that in the above rolling mechanic, just one rank in a skill allows you to change one [5] into a [6], which is huge.
I'd have to do more math to be sure, but my gut says if you get to double digit pools you can fairly consistently roll three or four successes.
>>48293199
I see, i will try to build something with this mechanic lets see how it goes
>>48293199
so how many successes does a normal challenge needs?
>>48295778
I don't know, I didn't do the math yet. Certainly more than one.
Hey, if this is going to be a serious project, would you mind contacting me on Skype?
>>48295996
I dont know how serious i can be at this moment, but i am always up to reading and making suggestions, iirc my skype is xchaparrox
>>48291327
That's brilliant, actually. Sorry, I'm stealing this now so I can crunch the numbers.
>>48299786
Dont forget to post it here or send the result to the skype above
>>48299914
Here's a quickie.
I'm pretty rough on my combinatorics and I'd need time to write up an algorithm to crunch the numbers for me, so I have a quick by-hand result of 2 talent versus 1 talent and 1 skill.
As you can see here, any roll that produces a success is bolded and every result that produces two successes is bolded and italicized.
Anyone here could do this, but it really shows just how much skill is more important than talent using that system- and how talent feeds into skills.
I have that number crunching program ready, look upcaptainnumbercruncheron Skype. I already sent a message to you, but I wasn't sure if that was the right target.
