Dice pool mechanics

[Morrus]

Comparing 1Di +j to a target number is a snap compared to checking how large n is with a roll of oDp when having to compare o dice versus the target number and counting.

Do what, now? I think I lost my j in the o somewhere n!

 

[Umbran]

Rolling a lot of dice can be fun, but it gets cumbersome if the pool is too big. Up to 10 is great, up to 20 may be pushing it, over 20 is pretty much right out of consideration as far as I'm concerned. Abstracting that down to a flat modifier (like +35 per 10d6) is really just putting lipstick on the pig. It may put the actual physical mechanics down to reasonable level again, but it still represents bloat.

Moreover, as you add dice, you lose swing. The more dice you roll, the greater the probability you'll get something like "average" performance.

Looking back at the 5d6 bell curve thread:

If you're rolling 5d6: the range is 5 to 30. And about half the time, the player will roll in the range of 15-20. Half the time, the player rolls in the middle 20% of the range.

If you're rolling 20d6, the range is 20 to 120. About 83% of the time, the player rolls in the middle 20% of the range.

So, the more dice you roll, the more likely you are to hit that middle section of the range/ This is statistics at work: the larger the sample, the more predicable the result.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Morrus is this definitely going to be your core mechanic or are you stillnconsidering other possibilities (like not adding the dice but counting successes, or using other die types). Not criticizing this method at all just curious what possible options are on the table for this discussion.

you had mentioned, i believe, turning dice into concrete numbers after a certain point as a posssibility (so you might still roll 1-5d6 but other dice past that just add a number. I think this works very well. If you could make it a round number like 10, that might be easier than adding 6, but not sure how that affects your probabilities (may get weird).

 

[Morrus]

Morrus is this definitely going to be your core mechanic or are you stillnconsidering other possibilities.

We have two weeks of core mechanic playtesting coming up next week. I'll let you know then!

 

[Bluenose]

What type of dice pool? Are you adding the results? Or using target numbers?

I played Exalted maybe 6 years ago, and they use large dice pools with target number 7. Every skill or combat check took 10-20 dice, divided into piles of 1s, 2-6, 7-9, and 10. That was a huge time sink. For whatever reason that's a lot slower than counting 10d6, or even 33d6! Unless you're offering special dice, avoid that kind of target number dice pool please! (Well, avoid if the pool is more than 7 dice. Anymore and counting starts taking effort.)

Exalted has the largest dice pools I'm familiar with. Twenty+ is hardly unknown.


Also worth noting, some games have fumble results that come up when you get more than a certain number of low results. That makes using a large dice pool a bit more of a gamble. Some compromise along the lines of this and the WFRP 3e/SW:EotE system would seem to be possible, roll dice up to your skill with no chance of a fumble, push beyond that and start adding dice with possible fumble results. As long as you practice at your skill level, you get pretty stable results; pushing yourself carries risk as well as reward.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Do what, now? I think I lost my j in the o somewhere n!

See what I mean? Different ways of thinking and all that...

 

[Kinak]

I feel like most games that regularly deal with large dice pools either count successes or count some subsection of the pool.

Personally, I'd lean towards counting successes (just count the dice that come up 5 or 6, simple enough). This is probably the most common solution.

But if you want to roll a bunch of dice and add them, you can do something like L5R that lets you roll a ton of dice and keep a certain amount. The number kept, if set for each character, is also a good stand-in for overall character power level.

In between the two there's the system Godlike uses, which is basically "roll your dice, then pick out the highest value you got and the number of that value you received." So your result would be something like "3 6s" rather than "64."

Sorcerer handles large pools (and small pools, any pools really) by directly comparing rolls. So you roll however many dX, then compare your top die, second highest, and so on until you have a winner. In practice, this works a lot like the previous option.

As [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] points out, large dice pools trend heavily towards the mean. After a certain point, you're spending a lot of time adding and rolling to generate numbers within a narrow range around average.

Anyway, hope something in here triggers a good idea

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Scars Unseen]

Moreover, as you add dice, you lose swing. The more dice you roll, the greater the probability you'll get something like "average" performance.

Looking back at the 5d6 bell curve thread:

If you're rolling 5d6: the range is 5 to 30. And about half the time, the player will roll in the range of 15-20. Half the time, the player rolls in the middle 20% of the range.

If you're rolling 20d6, the range is 20 to 120. About 83% of the time, the player rolls in the middle 20% of the range.

So, the more dice you roll, the more likely you are to hit that middle section of the range/ This is statistics at work: the larger the sample, the more predicable the result.

Of course this might be a desirable result. It depends on whether you want more emphasis on chance or character skill. Personally, I prefer the latter, which is why I've been sort of growing away from D&D and other d20 games.

Another alternative that can keep the number of dice down is to upgrade dice(and possibly downgrade dice?) For instance, you could have a system where success is normally determined by 3d8. Under favorable circumstances, one or more dice can be upgraded to a d12, and under unfavorable circumstances, downgraded to a d4. If you figure that most target numbers in the game lie between 10 and 16, you can see how finding ways to put yourself in a favorable situation can pretty drastically affect your chances of success.

 

[Umbran]

Of course this might be a desirable result. It depends on whether you want more emphasis on chance or character skill.

If I'm adding FIFTEEN DICE to get less swingy results, I'm dong something wrong. There are other ways to reduce (or outright eliminate) the role of chance - adding bucketfuls of dice should be somewhere down among your last options.

 

[Scars Unseen]

If I'm adding FIFTEEN DICE to get less swingy results, I'm dong something wrong. There are other ways to reduce (or outright eliminate) the role of chance - adding bucketfuls of dice should be somewhere down among your last options.

Apologies for my lack of specificity. I was referring to the first part of your post where you said that adding dice reduced swing. I never meant to imply that rolling 20 dice would be something I'd want to see in a game I'm playing. Heck, FATE manages with 4 dice, and the example I gave used 3.

If you are wanting so little swing that it takes 20 dice to satisfy you, you're probably better off with a diceless system.