Kyuseisha: Dice Mechanics Feedback: Statistics Folk Welcome!

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hey all- gunning for a little more feedback this week.  I may have another post in the next few days regarding another issue with my game.  We've begun playtesting (last week was chargen, this week is the First Session), and I'm hoping to tighten up the system in the beginning so as not to confuse the players with new rules each session, etc.

Oh, and I also made a catalogue of all my posts regarding this game, if anyone's interested in getting background that I didn't include in this post.  Click on my sig, below, for that link.

Today's feedback is on, in a word, DICE

So here's the system as is, cause I don't think I posted it yet.  In a nutshell:

* All die rolls the GM makes are in front of everyone. In the background of the game, there's really no cause or need for "secret rolls".

* It uses mostly d6es, with d8s at poignant moments (namely freebie/drama dice)

* Characters have 5 stats, rated around 2-6 (average 3). This represents the number of d6es to throw down for a corresponding roll.

* Then they have what is called a Core Role, which is a summary of all their "archetype skills" (ala RISUS, or Cover from Sorcerer). This Core Role is rated at "2 diamond" (in other words, a rating of 2, with a diamond next to it). This means that they roll 2d6, and 1d8, together.

* If I were to call for something like a "climb roll" (with the standard RPG clause of "If the character can easily do it, then don't make them roll: Only make them roll for the hard stuff), I would have the player roll their "Physique" (one of the 5 aforementioned stats), and if their Core Role fit acts of climbing (say "survivalist", "ranger", "warrior", "dude who climbs things", as opposed to, say, "diplomat", "mechanic", etc), then they would add their Core Roll dice as well.  They roll that dice pool.

Then they look for matches in the dice:

* First off, ones never match.  Keep that in mind. Ones are the equivalents of "zeros".

* For any other dice match, you add +2 for each matching die to that base number: If you roll dice that came up: 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, and 6, your take the high score, which in this case is "8" (4+2+2 for the matching 4s.  This exceeds the 6, so you take the 8 instead).

*If the player ties with the GM, they look at the next highest score.  keep going until a difference (and thus a winner and a loser) is found.

* As you're probably noticing, that extra 1d8 that comes up in Core Role rolls bends things a little: It makes the likelihood of matching one of the numbers on the d6es 25% less, but it produces a 25% of getting a 7 or 8, which is pretty high in this game (especially as a "backup" in case you are the PC in the above example, and your dice score of "8" matches the GM's roll).  I like the way this is working out in theory (anything that is related to your archetype has a much higher chance of success, but not obscene). Whether this pays off in practice will be revealed through extensive playtest, which starts regularly this week.

* Finally, I wanted to go with an opposed roll instead of a difficulty number system ("Ok, roll your dice and beat 9"), because I love the idea of a difficulty number not being set in stone.  The players never know the chance of success, and combined with the GM rolling in front of everyone, it really enhances the "rule drama", IMO.


So here's where I'm looking for feedback for now (but feel free to comment on the above):

======================

So, before, I was planning on having the GM make up stats for the NPCs like the PCs have.  So if a PC is opposing an NPC, the GM rolls a number of d6 dice (and maybe a d8 in there as well for the NPC's Core Role, if applicable) against the player's roll.

This I'm keeping for now.

The point of contention is when the Player fights against nature/the environment: He fixes an engine, she runs top-speed across the desert, she picks a lock, he searches for water.

Since d6 is the cornerstone die of the game, I originally wanted to write up a table of difficulties vs size of GM's d6 pool:
Medium = 3 dice
Hard = 5 dice
Extremely hard = 7 dice
Nearly impossible = 9+ dice

Thing is, I just thought today that, instead of all that rolling on the GM's side, why not replace the GM's d6 pool with a much smaller d8 pool?

Hard = 1d8
Extremely hard = 2d8
Nearly Impossible = 4 or 5d8 (5d8 would be the Max Difficulty)

It makes sense in my head.  Makes the GM's job a little easier, as the pool of dice is easier to manage and quicker to count.

Summary: Most rolls by the GM for nature difficulties will be 1d8 to 3d8.  Most players will be rolling an average of 3d6 for their rolls that don't involve their Core Role, and 7d6 plus a 1d8 for rolls that involve their Core Role (their highest, most commonly used stat is often a 5, adding 2 and a d8 for the core Role).

Q1: What do you folks think of that scale, in light of the above?

Q2: What about for "Medium" rolls (challenging, but not too rough)?  I had three thoughs:
* GM rolls 2d6
* GM says "beat 5"
* GM rolls 1d8 and subtracts 1.

Now, here's a question I'm sure someone's going to ask:

Why not have the Players roll a smaller pool of d8s as well?

There are two reasons:

1) I like the idea of stepped dice for Role, so if I went "all d8s", just for my own kicks I'd probably make the Core Role die a d10 instead of d8.
2) I love dice pool systems, as a player. At least, "relatively simple" dice pool systems. I love the idea of the dice being a metaphor for power or ability. Systems like Unisystem (which is a great system, IMO) don't entertain me as much: Roll one die and add your skill.  I love the idea of rolling small amounts of dice for some things, then turning around and rolling a huge handfull of dice for something that you're good at or take pride in.

I want the player to feel this same way, at least a little.  Thing is, going for that design, there's no real reason a GM needs to roll a huge counter-pool of the same dice: In this game, I'm more aiming that "I have lots of power, Yay!" feeling towards the Player than the GM.  I'm hoping that the GM will get his kicks out of entertaining the player, and thus not needing to make this power metaphor applicable for him.

Those are my thoughts.  Looking for quick feedback, namely on the statistics side of things from people good at that stuff (I was lucky enough to evade stats in favor of qualitative analysis for my Soc/Phil major back in school, so I dodged that subject at the cost of a solid background in stats :) )

Sorry about the long post, but I had to document the core mechanics for your understanding somewhere here.

Thanks for any insight!

-Andy

Coming Soon: "Kyuseisha: Too many effing knobs/doohickeys"?

[David Chunn]

Hi, Andy.

I like Core Role + Attribute very well.  It's intuitive and straightforward.  Probably not necessary in a narrativist game, but in a simulationist game I think it makes more sense.  I think it would be fine in either, though.  I'm using basically the same thing in my design, only I don't have a die pool mechanic.

(I'm not a big fan of funky dice techniques, myself, so keep that in mind.)  Your dice technique isn't hard per se, but it would require some learning time.  Or rather adjustment time.  Further, there's a bit more handling time.  I'd have to compare numbers, think about it all a good bit.  I like to look down and instantly know whether I've done well or not.  For a big roll, you may have to compare totals between two different sets of doubles and the highest value rolled on a single die.

As for the probability, it's mostly beyond me.  A similar method that I like, from Warhammer 40k of all things, is to roll your pool and if you get a 6, each additional 6 counts as a +1.  That would be a little more standardized, at least easier to calculate both as a player and from an odds standpoint.

Since I'm giving personal opinions, if I ran a game in your system I would probably find the average results for the dice pool and then use those to establish target numbers.  I like to concentrate my GM time on description not on rolling.  (Rolling as a GM makes me more gamist, regardless of what we're playing.)  That's the move I would take to reduce the GM's time, rather than the d8's.  You could appease folks like me by offering a choice in your text:  here's some target numbers if you don't want to roll.

If I were going to roll them, though, I'd prefer it if the GM just used d6's.  It keeps things nice and neat, and it makes the odds calculation easier.  Getting a roll of two 8's (1/64) would give me a 10.  The player would need a roll of three 6's (1/216) to beat that.  (I hope that math is right.  I'm getting very rusty.)

If players roll 3d6 on average, there's not going to be a lot of doubles.  But with those 7d6 rolls, you'll definitely get some, though they aren't always going to be ones you want.  

If moderate difficulty is 3 dice, that's going to be pretty tough, like 50-50, for characters who can't use their Core Role in that situation.

Oh, and I do have at least one friend who also loves the feeling of rolling lots of dice with something he's good at.  But d6 and Champions burned him of wanting to roll a whole lot of them.

Hope that helps,

--David

[Andy Kitkowski]

Thanks for the quick feedback, David!

Hi, Andy.

I like Core Role + Attribute very well.  It's intuitive and straightforward.  Probably not necessary in a narrativist game, but in a simulationist game I think it makes more sense.

Heh. If someone tied me to a chair and pointed a gun at my head and said "Adopt a GNS mindset!", I'd pretty much put myself at a huge "simulationist", with "narrativist" flowing in and out like the ladyfingers in tira mi su. So that's a bit of my background.

Further, there's a bit more handling time.  I'd have to compare numbers, think about it all a good bit.  I like to look down and instantly know whether I've done well or not.

I totally hear ya.  At first, it was going to be something with a little less adding (maybe a simple "total successes up!" with a success being a 5 or higher on a d6), but the truth of it is, aside from combat (which I still want to keep as simplified as possible), the players aren't going to be rolling dice all the time, as much as I can handle it.

And what I noticed is that there is, literally, about 3-5 seconds between throwing the dice and knowing what you got.  In the playtests that I've run up to this point, I've found that this generates a LOT of drama (!), as the player and GM are racing their eyes across the dice, quickly calculating their score ("OK, I got a six there, and a five... oh wait, I got two fives, so that makes a... Oh! That's three fours right there!  Rock on, I rolled an 8!").  We've found that it creates a sense of drama (especially with the GM rolling in front of everyone) of, get this, Poker:

Imagine playing a game of Blind 5-card Draw: The GM and the player "reveal their hands" at the same time to everyone.  Then they take a second or two to figure out what they have: But instead of screaming "Pair of Eights!" "Full House, Jacks over 9s!", they're saying: "I've got an 8, with a backup 6!" "I've got a 5! Crap!"

Anyway, it's working for us at the moment well because, I think, I try to keep the pools between 4 and 7. I'm trying to get the rules so that you'll never roll more than 8-9 dice unless you start "activating powers" or pulling Destiny Dice from the center of the table (a little like Franchise Dice from InSpectres). I don't want to create the confusion of high-powered games of HERO that I've seen.

A similar method that I like, from Warhammer 40k of all things, is to roll your pool and if you get a 6, each additional 6 counts as a +1.  That would be a little more standardized, at least easier to calculate both as a player and from an odds standpoint.

Very interesting!  I was actually planning on nearly the exact same system in the beginning. The only reason I changed was because:
1) It seemed too much like the SilCore (Tribe 8, Heavy Gear) system, and I still wanted to play around with doing something a little original that still worked.
2) More importantly, I wanted to create opportunities for more of a wider difference in the results.  I'm looking for scores where the difference, upon rolling, is regularly within 1-6 or so points of each other.  1-2 all the time was a little too small of a deviation, 6+ each time is a little too high. You actually don't factor in margin of success with my current system (except for kicks: "Wow! I climbed the wall and beat the GM's roll by 5! That means I did it really well!"), save for combat.  And currently, I'm working on a system where damage is figured in the attack roll... but for what I envisioned, I needed a slightly wider gap than a constant 1-2 point only spread.

You could appease folks like me by offering a choice in your text:  here's some target numbers if you don't want to roll.

Absolutely.  Also planning that as well, maybe in a side text or something.  Interesting how we're thinking alike here. At least, in terms of making provisions or people who want to do things differently.

If I were going to roll them, though, I'd prefer it if the GM just used d6's.  It keeps things nice and neat, and it makes the odds calculation easier.  Getting a roll of two 8's (1/64) would give me a 10.  The player would need a roll of three 6's (1/216) to beat that.  (I hope that math is right.  I'm getting very rusty.)

Actually, I don't think it is: There's a 1/216 chance to get a 10 if you only roll one 1d6 three times. The stats a different for a die pool.

But your comment is noted, cause I suck at stats, too, and need some serious feedback on this. :-)

Thanks, man!

[MachMoth]

I have to agree, I found the die mechanics rather annoying at first glance, but then it reminded me of my old "Six Shooter" game (one of my first real games).  I designed it to be a fast pased, but detailed game using only d6's.  Later I inserted a sort of Yazee mechanic, that produced some interesting results.  It even inspired me to make some variants on it that played with a deck of cards, poker style.  I never set the rules in stone, and as of now, the only exsisting copy is in my head.  None the less, the 2 second suspense of looking for that extra combo created a lot of fun in a low roll environment.