Dice Less Task Resolution

[RamblingMan]

I was just wondering what sorts of things people may have tried for resolving tasks without using as many dice as needed.  I don't have very many dice, or an inclination to buy a lot more, so before I ended up running a campaign with 5th level characters rolling at least 12 dice for every task, what are the alternatives?  Here's some things I'd been considering

Previously mentioned methods: Keeping the ratio of dice the same, but rolling less (e.g, 2:5 instead of 8:20); straight subtraction (2:X... 13:16 -> 2:5).  These bother me a little b/c I'm not sure how it affects the math, except that the first makes it more random, and could be hard to round, and the second changes the probability a bit.

A different resolution system: rather than the standard pool-ranking system or whatever you'd like to call it, maybe a whole different system entirely?  Simply adding them together and giving successes based on the difference could work, but might produce rediculous amounts of successes.  Maybe?

Something else I thought about was simply comparing, say, the number of 6s rolled with d6 dice.  Whoever rolled more 6s would win, with successes equaling the number of excess 6s over the loser.  I think this might work, although maybe d10s or d20s would still be better, or maybe not?  More importantly, you could reroll the non-6s to represent yet-unrolled dice, while with the standard system pretty much requires using the correct # of dice (unless of course you're using a varient like above).

Anyway, those are the things I've been thinking about instead of doing homework.  Comments appreciated!
--
Mail your d20s to: ramblingman@diceless.org

[anonymouse]

Are you talking about using less dice for a Donjon game specifically? Or in general?

In general, I like the Talislanta 4th Edition system when it comes to least-amount of dicing, while still being a dice-based system (or Fortune, as the hoity-toity parlance of the Forge would have it ;). Just a single D20 which can encompass degrees of success.

For Donjon.. I dunno. I'd point to a suggestion of mine in another thread: use electronic aid. Have either a desktop computer set up at the gaming table, or a laptop or a Palm, and run a random-number generator when you need to roll dice. Best solution I can offer.

[Mike Holmes]

This thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4437

covered several ideas for using less dice.

Mike

[RamblingMan]

Yeah, I know, but I don't like any of that thread's methods. :)  They're too confusing or have questionable probablistic properties.

And electronic aid is, unfortunately, not an option, unless we pack into a computer lab... :-/

[quozl]

Something else I thought about was simply comparing, say, the number of 6s rolled with d6 dice.  Whoever rolled more 6s would win, with successes equaling the number of excess 6s over the loser.  

An example:  

Human fighter rolls 12d6 and gets 2 sixes.
Goblin fighter rolls 8d6 and gets 1 six.

The human would only get 1 success?  That's a pretty drastic change.  

What if all sixes counted as successes and it was resolved simultaneously?  So the human would get 2 successes and the goblin would get 1 success.

[RamblingMan]

How would it work if the loser got successes, too?  It might me more appropriate to give successes per 6s rolled, instead of extra 6s (e.g, the Human above would get 2 successes, instead of 1), but I'm not sure how you could give them *both* successes... could you elaborate?

Besides, it's not *that* drastic...
If the Human rolled 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6;
And the goblin: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6;

The Human would get 2 successes under the normal system, 1 under the system I mentioned above.  Might be significant, but maybe not...  And giving a success per 6 (not per extra six), would also yield 2 successes.

[quozl]

How would it work if the loser got successes, too?

For example, the human would get two successes to damage against the goblin, and if the goblin was parrying, the goblin would get 1 success to damage against the human.  (This could make combats faster and bloodier.)   If the goblin was dodging, it could use that success to state a fact.  This is all just in my head--I haven't playtested this.

However, this method doesn't reduce the number of dice needed at all.  It's just a different resolution method.

[RamblingMan]

Yeah, I know it doesn't reduce the number of dice at first glance.  But if, say, you're rolling 15 dice, and you only have 4, you can just keep rerolling your dice and counting the 6s.  But the standard method would require you to record all the numbers you rolled, and rank them, etc...  So the 6-count method lets you reroll dice to save on quantity.

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, that was you in that other post.

You never mailed me your address. How can I send you more dice if you don't send me an address?

Because that's the fix for you. You don't seem to mind the rolling, you just don't have enough dice. Well, we can fix that.

OTOH, you can save me the shipping if just one of your players has a laptop. Or is it that you feel that everyone needs their own electronic device? Because just one can do everyone in a group, just keep it in the middle of the table, and everyone can refer to it. Let me know if that's an option, and we'll work up a randomizer for you. Excel would make it a cinch if you've got that.

Mike

[RamblingMan]

Unfortunately, none of us have a laptop or anything.  I don't think it'd be as much fun to roll electronically, anyway. :)

And it's not so much the rolling that bothers me, as just having so many dice on the table.  In my experience, it makes it a bit confusing to have so many dice on the table; rolling more dice isn't so bad, if you only have a few on the table at a time.  I dunno, it's hard to explain, it's just my personal preference.  Maybe I'm alone in this... :)

As for mailing, don't worry about it; I'll make do.  But thanks!

[quozl]

Here's a method I just thought of that may work for you:

Each side takes their totals and adds it to a d6.  The difference is the number of successes.

I also wonder if the mechanics for the Marvel Universe game might work well for Donjon.  Diceless Donjon, hmm....

[Scripty]

Previously mentioned methods: Keeping the ratio of dice the same, but rolling less (e.g, 2:5 instead of 8:20); straight subtraction (2:X... 13:16 -> 2:5).  These bother me a little b/c I'm not sure how it affects the math, except that the first makes it more random, and could be hard to round, and the second changes the probability a bit.

Something else I thought about was simply comparing, say, the number of 6s rolled with d6 dice.  Whoever rolled more 6s would win, with successes equaling the number of excess 6s over the loser.  I think this might work, although maybe d10s or d20s would still be better, or maybe not?  More importantly, you could reroll the non-6s to represent yet-unrolled dice, while with the standard system pretty much requires using the correct # of dice (unless of course you're using a varient like above).

After reading a bit here and on the other thread, something occured to me. Lowering the dice (but keeping the ratio) and using d6s, would not be that much different from just using d20s in the game as written. One of my difficulties with Donjon is rolling 12d20 for just 3 or 4 successes. My brain just shuts off if I have to roll more than 5 dice at a time. But if a smaller die increases the number of successes (as posed on the other thread mentioned above and, IIRC, in the optional rules themselves) and smaller dice pools/same ratios lowers the number of successes, then I could really see using d6s instead of d20s (which any rational Donjon purist should be using in the first place, ;) ) with smaller dice pools evening out.

As for rolling and only counting 6s, I like that idea. If I were intent on keeping the large dice pools, I would very much give it a whirl. But what would happen (pray tell) if no one got any sixes? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm Fortune-challenged (hence players enjoy when I GM). I'm not sure how this idea would even out against the recommendations in the book itself, however. But, as mentioned before, if you want more successes you could always lower the size of the dice (to d4 or even d2), to increase the number of successes.

[DevP]

Suggestion: Cards. One deck can do the equivalent of 52 dice throws, really, without reshuffling! The Donjon basic dice mechanic should work fine. (If you agree on a rank order of the suits, then you don't even have to worry about ties.)

I also wonder if the mechanics for the Marvel Universe game might work well for Donjon. Diceless Donjon, hmm....

Not familiar with Marvel, but given what I remember, I think you could have stone allotments for each ability and/or trait, so it could be okay. Number of stones over your rival = # facts.

With Active Exploits I can see some semblance of it working (success = 1 fact/die, each point over threshold = +1 fact/die, maybe a refreshable pool of extra point on the side to make stuff happen your way).