Favorite Dice Pool Systems?

Wil · April 13, 2007, 01:43:43 PM

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI really don't like "2nd wave" dice pool systems with a plethora of little add ons that make the whole thing unmanageable. Roll-and-keep, wild dice, and similar arragements make an already troublesome dice system maddening.

I don't see how SilCore is maddening. I roll three dice, the results are 1,4,5 - my roll is a 5. The maddening are ones where you have to line the dice up, find doubles, add and subtract depending on various numbers. But a straight roll and keep the highest is as fast to read IME as just rolling 1 die

Pseudoephedrine · April 13, 2007, 02:05:39 PM

Silhouette 2nd ed. and nWoD are my faves. I haven't tried SilCore, but I'm sure it's also very good.

I used to like Exalted's system, and I've got about thirty or forty d10s, but it's clunky as all shit and not very good. I just like hucking a full fist of dice around.

Wil · April 13, 2007, 02:09:39 PM

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSilhouette 2nd ed. and nWoD are my faves. I haven't tried SilCore, but I'm sure it's also very good.

SilCore is, functionally, identical.

Pseudoephedrine · April 13, 2007, 02:14:48 PM

Cool. The main reason I didn't pick it up was that I'd already bought a ton of HG 2nd ed. stuff and didn't want to buy everything again. Plus the game's emphasis starting changing to planet hopping etc. which I didn't want.

Caesar Slaad · April 13, 2007, 02:19:40 PM

Quote from: WilI don't see how SilCore is maddening.

I don't own sil core nor recall enough about how it operates, so I wasn't directly commenting on it.

QuoteI roll three dice, the results are 1,4,5 - my roll is a 5.

Does the number you keep vary, or do you always keep one? If so, that sounds fairly staightforward. The "roll and keep" I was criticizing is where you roll a varying number of dice and keep another varying number of dice. That is (yes, joewolz) annoying and probabilistically opaque.

Wil · April 13, 2007, 02:27:56 PM

Quote from: Caesar SlaadDoes the number you keep vary, or do you always keep one? If so, that sounds fairly staightforward. The "roll and keep" I was criticizing is where you roll a varying number of dice and keep another varying number of dice. That is (yes, joewolz) annoying and probabilistically opaque.

Multiple 6s add +1 to the total. So rolling 6,6,6 = 8. There is a cinematic option that does the same thing for 5s and 6s (so 5,4,6 would be a 7) and I've heard of people doing it for doubles (2,2,6,5 would be a 7: 6 + 1 for the double 2s) but those aren't standard options. In all three of those cases I was able to get the final result without even blinking though - but I agree that manipulating the results too much is annoying. Exalted 2e can be a chore because you have to group the dice together to count successes.

James McMurray · April 13, 2007, 03:03:32 PM

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat is (yes, joewolz) annoying and probabilistically opaque.

This is one of the things I like about roll and keep. You can't glance at a couple numbers, calculate your odds of success, and decide whether to risk it. Instead you have to look at your skill vs. the expected difficulty and decide if you think you're good (or lucky) enough.

HinterWelt · April 13, 2007, 03:22:07 PM

Zach,
You have gotten me thinking. Could you take a look?

Thanks,
Bill

Caesar Slaad · April 13, 2007, 03:32:49 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayThis is one of the things I like about roll and keep. You can't glance at a couple numbers, calculate your odds of success, and decide whether to risk it.

I've heard this defense of the more convoluted dice pools variants, and I think it's bogus. It's arguable that there might be a benefit in keeping the players a bit ambivalent about their chances. But it's never acceptable, AFAIAC, to keep the GM in the dark about the chances.

The best way to get the best of both worlds here is to have a system that accommodates keeping the target number secret from the player.

Zachary The First · April 13, 2007, 03:58:26 PM

Quote from: HinterWeltZach,
You have gotten me thinking. Could you take a look?

Thanks,
Bill

Bill,

I'm at work at the moment, but if you're thinking what I think you're thinking... :haw:

(btw, I owe you a "report" on the project you emailed me about the other day. I'll post up this weekend).

James McMurray · April 13, 2007, 04:02:46 PM

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI've heard this defense of the more convoluted dice pools variants, and I think it's bogus. It's arguable that there might be a benefit in keeping the players a bit ambivalent about their chances. But it's never acceptable, AFAIAC, to keep the GM in the dark about the chances.

The best way to get the best of both worlds here is to have a system that accommodates keeping the target number secret from the player.

For the record, I'm not using it in defense of all convoluted dice mechanisms, just the ones that are simple enough to use quickly and yet vague enough from a probability perspective not to be easily predicted. Of the ones I've seen, only roll and keep using either a naturally small dice pool or a size cap fits.

As a GM, I also like to have my probabilities vague. I don't want the NPCs thinking about them any more than I want the PCs. YMMV

HinterWelt · April 13, 2007, 05:44:20 PM

Quote from: Zachary The FirstBill,

I'm at work at the moment, but if you're thinking what I think you're thinking... :haw:

(btw, I owe you a "report" on the project you emailed me about the other day. I'll post up this weekend).

No sweat man. It is just me messing around with a conversion from Iridium Standard to what I am currently calling Iridium Pool. It is very short. I kind of like it right now but I am sure I am missing something...and that is where you come in. Hopefully James, Mike and Regulon will chime in too.

Thanks,
Bill

Wil · April 13, 2007, 05:50:12 PM

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI've heard this defense of the more convoluted dice pools variants, and I think it's bogus. It's arguable that there might be a benefit in keeping the players a bit ambivalent about their chances. But it's never acceptable, AFAIAC, to keep the GM in the dark about the chances.

The best way to get the best of both worlds here is to have a system that accommodates keeping the target number secret from the player.

For the more convoluted ones, sure, but the ones that stay within a reasonable range (3-6 dice or so) are generally no harder to figure out than a comparable additive system. Most people can't tell you what the odds a 5d6 fireball will have of killing a monster with 15 hit points; figuring out the odds of beating a target number of 4 when rolling 5d6 and keeping the highest isn't any different. And, of course, probability charts help a lot but they don't work if the die system is too complicated.

Caesar Slaad · April 13, 2007, 05:59:44 PM

Quote from: WilFor the more convoluted ones, sure, but the ones that stay within a reasonable range (3-6 dice or so) are generally no harder to figure out than a comparable additive system. Most people can't tell you what the odds a 5d6 fireball will have of killing a monster with 15 hit points; figuring out the odds of beating a target number of 4 when rolling 5d6 and keeping the highest isn't any different.

Which is why I think that linear is better than bell curves or dice pools of any stripe.

But within dice pools, you are better off with less variables with obvious effects than ones with convoluted ones. Which is why I maintain that within dice pool systems, nWoD is one of the best.

Dr Rotwang! · April 13, 2007, 06:04:53 PM

Quote from: WilMost people can't tell you what the odds a 5d6 fireball will have of killing a monster with 15 hit points...

At least 5 points; at most, 30. 5 times the "average" roll of a d6 (4) is 20, so there's your middle ground -- and the fattest part of the bell curve. That mofo is likely to get toasted up som'n goooood.

I thought everyone knew this stuff...