Are Dice Pools Good, Actually?

[doctorbadwolf]

I like dice pool systems. And I prefer the tactile aspect of adding/rmeoving dice from a pool rather than applying modifiers.

I agree. And I like the ability of rank dice to still roll quite low, against all average expectations, and circumstances or help or whatever to make a task possible or just round out the averages in your favor. It just all feels good, to me.

 

[Bilharzia]

Try Forbidden Lands or Mutant Year Zero, both have large quickstarts which detail the mechanics. Give either one a go it might help you understand the appeal.

 

[jasper]

Dice pools are great. Until you belly flop from the high dive!

 

[Umbran]

I’m not sure I buy the idea that “count successes” is simpler than “count numbers”

You can do the experiment, if you like. Get a handful of friends together, and a mess of dice . Each person will do two sets of ten rolls, each roll will be timed - one set is "roll 8 dice, and add them up" the other is "roll 8 dice, tell me how many are 5 or above". You can use anything d6 or higher - if you want to make the issue most clear, use d20s.

You will very probably find that the set of "roll and sum all" will be slower than the "roll and count hits".

When you are summing, for each die you are adding a number between 1 and N to the total, where N is the number of sides to the die. When you are counting hits, for each die you are adding 0 or 1 to a total. The latter is just faster for most people.

 

[GrahamWills]

I’m not a fan of dice pools because (1) it slows down resolution time and (2) makes it hard to eyeball probabilities. it also requires you to carry around tons of dice. I understand the visceral appeal of rolling lots of dice, but it’s not for me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can do the experiment, if you like. Get a handful of friends together, and a mess of dice . Each person will do two sets of ten rolls, each roll will be timed - one set is "roll 8 dice, and add them up" the other is "roll 8 dice, tell me how many are 5 or above". You can use anything d6 or higher - if you want to make the issue most clear, use d20s.

You will very probably find that the set of "roll and sum all" will be slower than the "roll and count hits".

When you are summing, for each die you are adding a number between 1 and N to the total, where N is the number of sides to the die. When you are counting hits, for each die you are adding 0 or 1 to a total. The latter is just faster for most people.

Have done, but that’s the wrong experiment.

The right experiment is to take a set of d6s or d10s (the two most grokable dice), and compare “did you hit or miss X” (where x is a relatively low number), vs “were there at least X dice 5 or 6”.

IME, the ease of use is functionally identical, and the first method is more satisfying and less weird.
But it’s quite easy to eyeball whether your result was higher or lower than 15, or whatever.

 

[Aldarc]

Define "less weird" and "more satisfying" here, please.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Define "less weird" and "more satisfying" here, please.

No thanks.

 

[prabe]

I think I'll take a shot at this, though I won't pretend it's exactly what @doctorbadwolf is thinking (so please don't react as though I'm putting words in his mouth).

Pick up a handful of d10s (let's say six) and roll them. The questions are "Did you roll over 30?" and "How many dice rolled 8 or higher?" I can see someone having an easier time doing the addition (less weird) and preferring to have one success threshold (30) to compare to (more satisfying). I'll point out that doing the math by sight is likely to be quicker/easier with pipped d6s than something with numerals, but that's ... not really relevant here (unless it is, I guess).

 

[Umbran]

Have done, but that’s the wrong experiment.

The right experiment is to take a set of d6s or d10s (the two most grokable dice), and compare “did you hit or miss X” (where x is a relatively low number), vs “were there at least X dice 5 or 6”.

First - for dice pools, it typically isn't a low number. The bell curve of dice pools means that we are generally going to not bother using the dice when the target is notably below the middle of the distribution. For even a basic 3d6 and sum dice pool, you are interested in target numbers above ten. As soon as your additions are getting into double-digits, human mental addition slows down.

Second, to make your point, you are pushing the adjudication step to the player, when that's typically done by the GM.

When you are playing D&D, you roll a d20, add your modifiers, and report the result to the GM, who tells you whether you succeed. The GM is not usually telling you the AC of the monster, or the DC of the save or skill check.

Same thing here - the player generates the die result, but the GM is the one who does the adjudication. So, it is typically the player's responsibly to sum the dice, or count the hits, and report to the GM - the GM then tells you what happens.