So the system that we're working on uses dice pools constructed by adding together various characteristics and skills that are being used. So far, everything works beautifully, but I'm working on statting out critters, and I've run into a bit of a problem. If (as we've been assuming) having 1d6 in a stat is 'average' for a normal human character, what is the strength score of a child? A cat? a rat? and so on. This problem isn't too huge, since I doubt that the system will ever be used for any sort of cricket-vs-mouse battles, but this granularity problem exists for all of the stats, and it is perfectly probably that a player will build a character with scores in this lower range (Raistlin as a Hobbit, perhaps?). In any case, we've managed to come up with 2.5 solutions to this, and we don't like them. So do any of you guys have any ideas or input? For brevity's sake, here are the solutions we've come up with.
  1 - Make Negative values work
                    This is really my favorite solution, but I can't think of a way to make it happen. If we have the negative value apply as a flat number modifier or as a threshold (throw out any dice that aren't higher than...) it becomes an inconsistency. In both cases they would be unique types of rules, since all other modifiers are whole dice or die-level-increases. I would really like to have a simple and straightforward way to translate a negative value in a stat into a detrimental modifier to a roll, and make it so that a negative stat can do something on it's own. If a strength of 1 can lift W, and Strength 0 can lift X, and strength -1 can lift Y, I need a consistent rule for how much strength -2 can lift is.

  2 - Re-define 'Average'
                    If we change 'average' from 1d6 to something else, like 1d10, then there would be enough downward granularity to have actual, if slight, differences between the intellect of a normal person, someone who's been beaten about the head a bit, and a chimpanzee with Down's Syndrome. Unfortunately, since we don't use dice larger than d12s (because of stepping problems and the paucity of d18s), this then has problems with upward mobility vis-a-vis advancement (character level limits how many dice you can have in any one thing)

  2.5 - Re-define 'Average"
                    If we make 'average' 2d6 instead of 1d6, then that gives us more than enough room to work with. Unfortunately, we would then be confronted with numerous problems - not the least of which is that I'd have to re-do all of the numbers and math that make up the system...and I would rather eat a pair of hedgehogs covered in marmalade. Also, it would produce either an imbalance between stats and skills, or, if we similarly changed skills, an advancement issue with buying them up. Furthermore, it would increase the 'minimum' size of a dice pool from one or two dice to four or five, with similar increases all the way up, which I find aesthetically unpleasing.

So those are the solutions we have failed to come up with, so if you've got any ideas that aren't those, or a way to make those work elegantly, lemme hear 'em. Thanks for reading, I need to go get some ice cream.
Monk

Well keep the average for d6 but make it a base ten setup like the Richter magnitude scale.  A cat or dog average d6 would be be one tenth as strong as a humans d6.  A notation on the sheet for a cat would be like D6^.1(ten cats maybe more would equal one average mans strength, a dog maybe d6^.25  (A stronger animal).  So if several of these creatures gang up maybe they can start rolling a full d6 (how often this would even matter would be small.  When would a cat or small animal outright attack a human?) 

children can be d6^.2 or d6^.1.5,  a 15 or 16 year old could be d6^.5.

*note the carrot (^) is just a notation.. does not mean power of.

Simplest IMO is min(d6, dX). You keep the same range, from 1-6, but make the higher values appear less, which should probably not screw up any of your math. So for example a hobbit might have a strength of min(d6, d10) giving probabilities 1=25%, 2=22%, 3=18%, 4=15%, 5=12%, 6=8%.

I like the idea of scales, but would just use a mulitplier on the part that needs to be scaled. EG children are 1/2 scale. Comapred to each other it doesn't matter.

This is only marginally related, but may spark something...

The system used by Earthdawn involved pools of dice (though they were build using "steps", not combinations of traits). Two things were interesting about how their pools worked. 1) It handled a really wide level of power fairly decently (though they also used "open ended/exploding" dice, which sometimes undermined this) and 2) the pools were selected such that the average result of the pool equaled the "step".

It seems like you could put this last bit to work for you.

Creatfire, you have a rather nice solution, and I especially like Mr. (Ms.?) 13's take on it - to just make them fractional dice instead, but it seems to me that it would only work for brute force types of rolls where cumulative effort between people is possible. While giving dogs a strength of 1d6^1/4 might be fine, saying that hippopotamuses have a dexterity of 1d6^1/4 just makes issues - it takes four hippopotamuses working together to get 1d6 of dexterity...anyhow - it was a good idea, but just not quite neat enough for me. I'm picky.
Guy's idea is also good, and if I my system weren't based on having multiple dice already, I might jump on it. Especially since color-coding is being used in a supplementary way, using your unique and creative system would mean having to roll certain dice separately from the rest of them, and I am, again, rather picky about things being neat. Still, I like it and I'm trying to think of an excuse to use it somewhere else.
Wordman brings up Earthdawn, and while that name still conjures up horrible images for me (mostly of my girlfriend beating me with various vegetables while we watched them, but of the films as well), the stepping system is actually quite similar to what I've got already - I just don't use the table. I suppose negative stats could be die level modifiers, such that a -4 in something brings the other dice down by 4 'steps'. This would turn 2d10 into 2d6 (or 1d4 and 1d8, or possibly just 1d12 - but that would involve doing weird things to your GM). I guess I like this enough that I'll default to it if something else doesn't come around.

Thanks for all the input - feel free to keep them coming!
Monk

Monk wrote: Wordman brings up Earthdawn, and while that name still conjures up horrible images for me (mostly of my girlfriend beating me with various vegetables while we watched them, but of the films as well)...

Indeed you are correct. Apologies to Earthdawn then. In any case, I think I will see if I can hunt some of it down. My local gaming store has a nice collection of old stuff if you ask for it. Thanks for the tip there.