The Pool: The Toybox

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

Three threads you should read if you haven't:

1) http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=689">This thread is a discussion of the "thrashing at the bottom of the pool" phenomenon you're noticing. I seriously considered using four-siders instead of six-siders when our play group was struggling with this issue. Mike Holmes does the math for four-siders on the thread. I rather thought when James clarified Trait rolls that the thrashing problem had been mitigated nicely, but I haven't actually played The Pool since he rewrote the Trait roll text.

2) Prompted by my concern with thrashing, Mike Holmes proposed an alternative he called http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=683">Anti-Pool. Someone should play this thing.

3) And http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1138">this is a thread about negative return on investment with The Pool. There's some discussion about why it might be generally a good thing.

Paul

[James V. West]

Hey everyone, sorry I didn't get in on this sooner.

In case there is any confusion about what version of The Pool is current, this is it:

http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html">The Pool

I apologize that the really junky version was still up on the geocities page. I'm taking it off right now. The current version is far from perfect, but its much, much better and easier to read. I shudder to think that people have been looking at that old version and going "Egads!". Then again, you might look at the current version and go "Egads!" as well...

The funny thing about this game is how it tends to spawn either high praise, or serious hammering.

I'll just list the few points I want to talk about in random order (of course):

1. I'm notably mutable when it comes to changing rules if I feel a change is in order. That's why I altered the rules to give 2 dice for a success instead of just 1, and I ditched the rule about requiring a gamble on a player-requested roll. Right now the only rule I am unsatisfied with is the cost of Trait bonuses. I like the way they are simple, requiring no chart or funky math. But I would like to make it easier to get bonuses of +3 or +4 to help with the common failed roll.

2. A successful roll means story-control, a failed roll means lack of story-control. Its as simple as that, no matter how unecessarily complicated I make it sound in the rules.

3. I never did any math when designing this game. All I knew was that I wanted a pass/fail system and the gambling rule seemed like a good way to avoid any kind of rating system. And I definitely didn't want any counting of successes or tallying of any kind except the counting of dice as you lose them (ok, that was a joke--sorry).

4. The rules for http://www.randomordercreations.com/tqb.html">TQB came about as my own response to certain concerns about The Pool. I knew how I wanted TQB to work and I knew I needed more stability to make it happen, thus the variations. If you don't think The Pool works well for your style and your group, try TQB. The players have more control and their die pools tend to be more stable.

5. When I run the game, I rarely give only 1 die for a roll. Most often I give 3, sometimes 2.

6. As others have pointed out, I think its of extreme importance that anyone playing The Pool understands point #2 from above. If a player is still in DnD mode, they will not enjoy this game. The Pool works best when there are no pre-set goals in mind and when players can roam free with their MoVs (and MoDs if used), even if those are few and far between. But even then, if the player is still thinking in terms of skills, equipment, and task res--he or she is simply not going to get what they want.

[Michael Bowman]

In case there is any confusion about what version of The Pool is current, this is it:

Thanks for that. We've been using the GeoCities version, as that was the one referenced in the Forge's Resource Library.

2. A successful roll means story-control, a failed roll means lack of story-control. Its as simple as that, no matter how unecessarily complicated I make it sound in the rules.

This has become confused for us, to some degree, because we're using MoDs as well. So there are two types of monologues. I'm thinking that perhaps we need to drop MoDs. But then I am still faced with the thrashing issue.

4. The rules for http://www.randomordercreations.com/tqb.html">TQB came about as my own response to certain concerns about The Pool. I knew how I wanted TQB to work and I knew I needed more stability to make it happen, thus the variations. If you don't think The Pool works well for your style and your group, try TQB. The players have more control and their die pools tend to be more stable.

I looked at TQB, but as we're playing pulp, I felt the more roller coaster feel of TP was more appropriate. Thus I didn't try to talk Steve into using TQB instead, except for MoDs.

5. When I run the game, I rarely give only 1 die for a roll. Most often I give 3, sometimes 2.

That's interesting. I remember Ron mentioning he normally gives 1. A couple of dice can make a big difference.

6. As others have pointed out, I think its of extreme importance that anyone playing The Pool understands point #2 from above. If a player is still in DnD mode, they will not enjoy this game. The Pool works best when there are no pre-set goals in mind and when players can roam free with their MoVs (and MoDs if used), even if those are few and far between. But even then, if the player is still thinking in terms of skills, equipment, and task res--he or she is simply not going to get what they want.

Hmm. I'm wondering if perhaps we're rolling too often, at a more task-oriented level.

I'm thinking that maybe we need to give vanilla The Pool a try (without MoDs, in other words) and see how that goes.

Speaking of thrashing, last session we began with 3 players at 0 dice and me with 1. I believed we ended up not much different (I went up to 3, I believe, while the other players stayed at 0).

Michael

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Something is horribly wrong with whatever version of The Pool is kicking around out there.

James, what structurally seems to be preventing people from (a) calling for rolls in easy conflicts, (b) largely succeeding with them (given that they're using 4-5 dice), and (c) building up their Pools by adding dice for successes?

I also strongly recommend that the second part of your point #3 be heavily emphasized in the rules. There are no "fumbles" in The Pool. I truly fail to see why people have glommed onto the idea that somehow, this game is about "hosing" players who fail rolls.

Best,
Ron

[Michael Bowman]

James, what structurally seems to be preventing people from (a) calling for rolls in easy conflicts, (b) largely succeeding with them (given that they're using 4-5 dice), and (c) building up their Pools by adding dice for successes?

Now that you do not have to gamble to call for rolls, I suspect we'll be calling for rolls a bit more often.

As for largely succeeding, either the odds need to be better (1 in 4 or 1 in 3), or else more dice need to be available to roll. I'm not sure how to handle the latter solution, except to see how a normal award of 3 instead of 1 works. But, Steve has been normally giving us 2 or 3, and that hasn't helped much.

I think that either GM- or player-initiated rolls should have the option of gaining dice. Otherwise the player is not in control of when he can gain dice.

I also strongly recommend that the second part of your point #3 be heavily emphasized in the rules. There are no "fumbles" in The Pool. I truly fail to see why people have glommed onto the idea that somehow, this game is about "hosing" players who fail rolls.

More language on Guided Events would be good.

We do have this part clear, Guided Events sometimes go our way, sometimes not. It's the MoD that tends to do us in more. We're definitely getting more MoDs than MoVs (god knows why, as they're less likely). And an MoD is defintely a failure (although not a fumble necessarily, of course).

Michael