Transforming Dice Rolls, Too Annoying?

[Lynn]

I have an experimental system in the works, and would appreciate feedback.

Rolling a challenge is based on dice pools (d6s), with a 1-3 by default being a fail, and a 4-6 by default being a success. Some dice come from "stats", some from "skills".

The transformational part comes in with skills. My notion here is that expertise (ie # of skill dice) lets you modify some of the failures which otherwise could be accounted as "wild guesses" coming from indirect/supportive knowledge. The two ways this would modify:

1) the highest fail roll may (not required) be incremented by 1

2) for each skill dice rolled, a fail can be decremented by 1, starting from the lowest fail.

example: 3d (of stat) + 2d (of skill) = 5d

first rolls are, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (3 fails, 2 successes)

highest fail roll is a 3, and its beneficial to increment that to 4.

2D of skill means two decrements.

The 1 becomes a 0.
The 2 becomes a 1.

end calculation = 1, 4, 4, 5 (1 fail, 3 successes (and a match, but lets not get into that yet))

Too much work / annoyance for the player so far?

[flyingcircus]

Almost looks like the UBIQUITY system only harder.

[Ladybird]

It looks a bit overcomplex, so far. You're potentially layering too many functions on one number (The skill rating). (Also, by my count, you've adjusted three die rolls in your example).

I think it's the V8 system, in some post-apoc vehicle game, that lets you roll [stat] dice and modify the pips rolled by [skill] amount. Would that work for you?

Or, for your system, how about: stats let you remove [stat] pips of dice. Skills let you add [skill] pips to dice. A die dropped to 0 no longer counts as having been rolled. You can spend 4 skill points to buy an extra success (Although it would rarely be useful).

You also mention matches... how much more is there to your core mechanic?

[Lynn]

You also mention matches... how much more is there to your core mechanic?

A match does two things:

- A match increases the number of fails or successes. For example, the two 4s would add another 4.

- A match increases the severity of the fail or success, like a fumble or a critical.

The player could tell the dm "1 fail, 4 successes, 1 match" in the case that the challenge is one that the player might have no way to figure out the complexity (such as disarming a trap).

[Spinachcat]

I sense wonkiness.

Also, the system should support the genre/setting/etc.  Is this a setting where Skill Trumps Fate or where Shit Happens Even to Batman?

I played a demo years ago where you rolled Stat in D6s and added successes equal to your Skill and you only fumbled when you did something unskilled.

It was fine for the Espionage setting because we were supposed to be Badasses fighting Badasses for underworld shadow supremacy.

[Ladybird]

A match does two things:

- A match increases the number of fails or successes. For example, the two 4s would add another 4.

- A match increases the severity of the fail or success, like a fumble or a critical.

The player could tell the dm "1 fail, 4 successes, 1 match" in the case that the challenge is one that the player might have no way to figure out the complexity (such as disarming a trap).

Oh my. That's a very large amount of information to calculate in a short span of time. I see what you're going for, it's a simple dice pool / count successes mechanic, but I think you're overcomplicating it too much.

You say "the two fours would give another 4". Is that another four successes, or another one success (As if they'd rolled another die and scored another 4)?

How are results adjudicated? Net successes / fails? You could possibly make the call simpler by saying, for example, "3 successes, crit".

[Bloody Stupid Johnson]

If I'm reading it correctly, the failure number is more beneficial for the character with a lower roll, while the success dice are more beneficial with higher rolls? Icky.
 
Other than that, you get the same sort of effect I think, with "roll stat dice TN 4, plus skill dice TN 3".

[Lynn]

Oh my. That's a very large amount of information to calculate in a short span of time. I see what you're going for, it's a simple dice pool / count successes mechanic, but I think you're overcomplicating it too much.

You say "the two fours would give another 4". Is that another four successes, or another one success (As if they'd rolled another die and scored another 4)?

How are results adjudicated? Net successes / fails? You could possibly make the call simpler by saying, for example, "3 successes, crit".

It would be another 1 success, as if they'd rolled another die and gotten a 4 on it.

Yes, that's also sort of what I had in mind - net successes (minus fails), with crits adding to "damage" or some effect.

As SpinachCat points out - the emphasis here is on true skill. A player can add some or all of his stat, and some or all of his skill to his roll. If it were a stat only roll, and the stat was high, there is a chance of a great effect - bad or good. If it were a skill only roll, chances are good that it will generate more successes than fails, because you'd be nixing the lowest rolls (and one fail roll of 3 can be kicked up to a success of 4).

[Lynn]

If I'm reading it correctly, the failure number is more beneficial for the character with a lower roll, while the success dice are more beneficial with higher rolls? Icky.
 
Other than that, you get the same sort of effect I think, with "roll stat dice TN 4, plus skill dice TN 3".

If you have actual skill, then you get to drop a 1 to 0 (removing that fail die), and a roll of 3 (which is a fail) gets kicked up to 4 (which is a success).

Lets say you are just rolling two dice of skill (and no stat) and get a 1 and a 3.

The 3 becomes a 4.  You only get one of those, but you've turned a "near miss" into a hit.

You have two decrements you can apply, but you only need one to turn that 1 to a 0.

The end result is one success.

Now compare:

Lets say you are just rolling two dice of skill (and no stat) and get a 3 and a 3 (which would be bad if it was all stat and no skill, because its matched failure).

One 3 becomes a 4, by applying expertise.

The other 3 I rolled can be decremented up to two, but a 1 is still a fail.

The end result is one fail and one success.

Why is rolling a 1 better than another 3 when I have expertise? A 3 is closer to success, but its still wrong. Maybe with my greater knowledge, I think its viable because it closely resembles a success. Whereas a 1 - well, that's low...absurdly low. My greater knowledge of whatever it is tells me that couldn't possibly be right, so I eliminate it as a possible solution.

[Bloody Stupid Johnson]

Mmm'kay...

OK another problem I should have thought of earlier - what are you doing with the counted-up fails?
Obviously I don't have the full details of how you were planning on using these, but I'm not sure how you do anything with them that's workable. The more dice you roll, the more potential 'failures' are possible, so it seems like you'd be designing a system where the more skilled you are, the more horrible the botches that result.

[Lynn]

Mmm'kay...

OK another problem I should have thought of earlier - what are you doing with the counted-up fails?
Obviously I don't have the full details of how you were planning on using these, but I'm not sure how you do anything with them that's workable. The more dice you roll, the more potential 'failures' are possible, so it seems like you'd be designing a system where the more skilled you are, the more horrible the botches that result.

If fails outnumber successes, then you fail. The number of fails vs successes also gatekeep any fumbles or criticals. If you have more fails than successes, it doesn't matter if there's a critical (matching success) mixed in there, but it does matter if you have any fumbles (matching fails).

The skill dice, in low numbers are less likely to produce fails. For example, rolling two dice. If one is a 3 (fail), it can become a 4 (success). Plus you are decrementing up to two dice as well. A one becomes a 0, or a 2 becomes a 0.

It gets riskier the more stat dice are tossed in, in comparison with the skill dice, because your decrements have to spread over more potential failures.

[Malleus Arianorum]

I wouldn't say it's annoying, but I'm not really excited by it either.
 
Hypotheticaly, the most exciting occurence is rolling threes and turning what appears to be fail into success.
* a three is rolled and incremented to a four (-1 fail, +1 success)
* two threes are rolled and incremented to fours (-3 fails, +3 successes)
 
And there could be some anticipation calculating if enough Fails could be expunged.
 
Thematicaly it seems like a good fit for characters who are given powers and have to learn to control them. (Xmen mutants, witches, children of destiny, inheritors of powerful artifacts). But I'd need to see a solid character generation system to mandate meaningful choices along the spectrum of skill/stats instead of just picking the smart choice before I'd consider this system a selling point.

[Lynn]

Hypotheticaly, the most exciting occurence is rolling threes and turning what appears to be fail into success.
* a three is rolled and incremented to a four (-1 fail, +1 success)
* two threes are rolled and incremented to fours (-3 fails, +3 successes)
 
And there could be some anticipation calculating if enough Fails could be expunged.
 
Thematicaly it seems like a good fit for characters who are given powers and have to learn to control them. (Xmen mutants, witches, children of destiny, inheritors of powerful artifacts). But I'd need to see a solid character generation system to mandate meaningful choices along the spectrum of skill/stats instead of just picking the smart choice before I'd consider this system a selling point.

My original plan was that only one die is incremented, regardless of the amount of skill - having all 3s become 4s by default seems like it would shoot up the number of successes. Maybe that would be some special benefit or advantage?

Thematically you are close to what I have in mind- I want to polish that a bit before revealing too much, but soon.

[Malleus Arianorum]

Incrementing all threes will make big dice pools Succeed more and fail less. Doing the work of skill.

Increment ing a single three protects small dice pools from faiL but becomes trivialized with large pools.

I like the idea that large dice pools are disproportionally unruly. HERO had a similar concept, with more expensive powers requiring more END and costing more to advantage.

Personally I'd like to see more contrast between the safe small dice pools and the dangerous large dice pools.

For example make doubles hazardous (since they occur more in large dice pools)
Say that all Doubles count as three fails unless they are transformed with skill.