rules:  http://www.mosierworks.com/dev/theDead012606.pdf

Considering the possibility of changing the rules under "How Do I Do Stuff?" on pgs. 8-9 that currently read:

An Attribute Check (AC) involves rolling a number of six-sided dice equal to the Attribute being ‘checked’,
and trying to get as many 5’s or 6’s as possible. Rolling a 5 or 6 on a six-sided die indicates a “Success”. . Most simple actions can be accomplished with a single success, but some will require multiple successes, based on the
complexity of the action or situation.

With the mechanic as it is, you will average 2 successes on a roll of 6d6.

With the mechanic you propose, you will average 1 success on a roll of 6d6.

Therefore, ones cancelling successes seems to be a major hit against success. Unless you have 6d6, you'd fail more often than you'd succeed.

(True math geeks, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!)

Well, I know the stats, but I have no idea on how to insert a table so the formatting is going to suck, but...

The probability of getting (N) 1s on Xd6 are as follows

1d6- (1)(.167)
2d6- (1)(.309) (2)(.027)
3d6- (1)(.422) (2)(.073) (3)(.005)
4d6- (1)(.521) (2)(.132) (3)(.016) (4)(.001)
5d6- (1)(.597) (2)(.196) (3)(.035) (4)(.003) (5)(.000)
6d6- (1)(.661) (2)(.264) (3)(.062) (4)(.009) (5)(.001) (6)(.000)

As you can see the returns diminish. Overlapping this curve onto the probability of success curve is more work than I feel like doing, but I'll give you an idea of the overall effect.

When you use any dice pool mechanic where rolling X or higher (or lower) on a dice results in a single success/failure, you're going to have a curve with diminishing returns. Basically it would look like the (parabolic) curve in <a href="http://www.mmwindowtoart.com/drawing/para1.html">this animation. So with your dice pool mechanic, where certain rolls can cancel out other rolls, you are basically subtracting one parabolic curve from another. In game terms, this will increase the tendency that a player would "roll towards zero".

I hope this helps.

All I know is that my players hated having to lose successes to ones in old WoD rule sets.

In fact, they would avoid using large pools just so they couldn't triple botch.

If you wnat my advice, don't do it. It's no fun to see a fabulous roll turn to shit.

Gains / IagainstI / Adam,

Thanks for the replies and thoughtful commentary.  I completely agree with you gains, re: oWoD rules...that just ends up being no fun for anyone.  With what Adam and IagainstI clearly stated and illustrated, I think there is no reason to make 1's some sort of failure, when LotD (luck of the dice) will take care of that on its own.

I think what I was imagining was more so maybe a 'botch' mechanic, which i could add and simply state that "a result of all 1's on a roll results in..." and that might not play havoc on the players chance of success or failure, necessarily.  I mean, with all 1's, they've already failed...I'm just adding something so we can narrate "not only did you miss, but you've got a round cooking off in the chamber." or somesuch.

thanks so much for the comments!

-k

Hey dude, yeah it smells like oWoD above, but I see no reason why you shouldn't go for a NWoD feel with the d6es:

That is, a "1" is a "botch", but only if no other dice come up 5 or 6. 

Maybe 1 botch is all you need to enter a botched state.

Or perhaps, like nWoD, several botches make up one Superfuck.

Something to think about, anyway.

-Andy

Andy wrote:
Hey dude, yeah it smells like oWoD above, but I see no reason why you shouldn't go for a NWoD feel with the d6es:

That is, a "1" is a "botch", but only if no other dice come up 5 or 6. 

Maybe 1 botch is all you need to enter a botched state.

Or perhaps, like nWoD, several botches make up one Superfuck.

Something to think about, anyway.

-Andy