Are Dice Pools Good, Actually?

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, so I’ve seen a few people tag on dice pools lately, especially those that you count up the dice to reach a target number, and I don’t really get it.

I’m not sure I buy the idea that “count successes” is simpler than “count numbers”, unless the game always has the same numbers be success (eg, success is 5 or 6), and honestly I just can’t like a system where I fail a task because I only succeeded twice, and needed to do 3 times. And yes, that still bugs me even a dozen sessions into a campaign in such a system.

so, what’s up with dice pools? Why is the bell curve not worth the trivial additional math? Is there something else about it that I’m missing?

 

[billd91]

You can't like a system in which you fail because you were 1 short? That's what we're looking at here - you missed the role and because it's being done with a dice pool rather than adding some numbers up straight off a die/multiple dice - that breaks it for you?

Seriously?

I get preferences and all that, but honestly, the gaming community gets so fussy.

 

[Arilyn]

I don't really have a problem with any resolution system, as long as it's working as intended, and it's not too onerous or convoluted.

 

[billd91]

I don't really have a problem with any resolution system, as long as it's working as intended, and it's not too onerous or convoluted.

Yeah, usability is what's important for me as well. Sometimes that comes in just having an easy method of resolution, but sometimes it also comes with the system making it easy to calculate/estimate my chances. Adding a modifier to a d20 is easy. Rolling a dice pool for successes can also be easy - success on 5 or 6 on a d6? I can take the # of dice in my pool, divide by 3, and that's my expected number of successes. Easy. Rolling a d100 under a skill rating? Easy.

Add too many modifiers, too many dice to add every trial - all of that starts to get more and more distracting. I can work through it if the game is good enough, but I find I start to like simplicity in my old age.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You can't like a system in which you fail because you were 1 short? That's what we're looking at here - you missed the role and because it's being done with a dice pool rather than adding some numbers up straight off a die/multiple dice - that breaks it for you?

Seriously?

I get preferences and all that, but honestly, the gaming community gets so fussy.

I think it's more that you get two successes, but still fail. The game tells you that you've succeeded some, but not enough, and that's the same as not succeeding at all. It's an odd dichotomy, when viewed that way.

I don't have that hitch, but I see it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can't like a system in which you fail because you were 1 short? That's what we're looking at here - you missed the role and because it's being done with a dice pool rather than adding some numbers up straight off a die/multiple dice - that breaks it for you?

Seriously?

I get preferences and all that, but honestly, the gaming community gets so fussy.

I think it's more that you get two successes, but still fail. The game tells you that you've succeeded some, but not enough, and that's the same as not succeeding at all. It's an odd dichotomy, when viewed that way.

I don't have that hitch, but I see it.

That’s exactly it. I didn’t get any successes. If I had, I’d have succeeded. It shouldn’t be called a success if it doesn’t denote success. It’s weird as hell.

but also I just don’t like the way it runs compared to, say, the dice pool in The One Ring, where you have a TN and add numbers, but the math stays in low numbers, and degree of success can be determined by adding any maximal results on the dice. I hate systems wherein degree of success is a matter of “succeeding or failing by X or more”.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What if another term than “successes” was used? Strikes, let’s say.

You needed three strikes but only got two, sorry you didn’t succeed.

 

[Morrus]

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

 

[Nimblegrund]

I’m not sure I buy the idea that “count successes” is simpler than “count numbers”, unless the game always has the same numbers be success (eg, success is 5 or 6), and honestly I just can’t like a system where I fail a task because I only succeeded twice, and needed to do 3 times.

Is it a matter of terminology? Some RPGs call dice "hits" rather than successes, because rolling a "success" and the task failing seems a little strange, and makes things ambiguous when someone says they "rolled a success."

All i can say is rolling lots of dice is fun, and i dont find the math any more or less arduous, so long as modifiers to the roll are consistent. Modifying the target number you need to roll on the die with one modifier and changing the die pool with another can feel a bit disjointed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Is it a matter of terminology? Some RPGs call dice "hits" rather than successes, because rolling a "success" and the task failing seems a little strange, and makes things ambiguous when someone says they "rolled a success."

All i can say is rolling lots of dice is fun, and i dont find the math any more or less arduous, so long as modifiers to the roll are consistent. Modifying the target number you need to roll on the die with one modifier and changing the die pool with another can feel a bit disjointed.

Yeah, the terminology, but also just...it feels like I could just as easily be rolling to hit a target number instead of rolling to count the number of times I hit a given result to then compare that derived number to a target. Even “hit” is counterintuitive, IMO.

I will say that counting successes can lead to easy “mixed success” mechanics, but so can a DC ladder, where if your DC was moderate and you beat the Hard DC, it’s a better success, and if you hit the Easy DC it’s a mixed success.