This is related to the current topic "No Islands in The Pool". What bothers me most about the conclusions in that thread is the idea that, from a statistical perspective, it is almost always the best strategy to bet all of your dice. I wondering from folks who've played more than I (I've only played once), does this seem to be the case?

The presence of "one right answer" would, for me, be a big problem in the game.

I read on another Pool thread (I can't find it now) the idea of allowing a player to add dice to his pool (in lieu of an MoV) equal to the number of 1's rolled. While this might address the "no islands" problem, it would even further encourage the high betting strategy.

One idea that I'm playing around with is to vary the hose depending on how many dice are left in a player's pool. It would work something like this, if you lose a roll, and have no dice left, then apply a big, critical, major hose. If dice are left apply a lesser hose. The more dice, the lesser the hose. This would at least create a sense of conservation on bets.

Any thoughts?

That would be an apropriate balance in general to the pool mechanic as it stands, but the question becomes how to determine just which Hose is bigger than which. That may not be easy to answer.

Also, once you are at a certain level, any failure will be as bad or worse than the lastone that got you there assuming that you haven't accumulated any more dice. Easier would be to use the number of dice gambled as the level of severity. Then a character who is down won't continue to get harshed when only betting a die at a time.

Mike

On 2001-09-26 14:49, Mike Holmes wrote:

That would be an apropriate balance in general to the pool mechanic as it stands, but the question becomes how to determine just which Hose is bigger than which. That may not be easy to answer.

Also, once you are at a certain level, any failure will be as bad or worse than the lastone that got you there assuming that you haven't accumulated any more dice. Easier would be to use the number of dice gambled as the level of severity. Then a character who is down won't continue to get harshed when only betting a die at a time.

Hello

I'd like to say first that I never mention anything about hosings in the current rules. When I run the game, I only give a lashing when it is a moment that screams out for it. Purely a matter of style. Often, I narrate failures that sound more like successes.

I've ran the game three times and never had a problem with pools bottoming out. But, like I told Paul, my players are fairly conservative with their gambling. I have noticed that die rolls fail at least as often as they succeed, if not more so. Therein may certainly be a problem.

I designed the system with the idea that it would be fast, loose, and allow for shared creativity. I want it to do that, so I'm looking at changing the rules a bit. Check my reply to the other post on this subject.

And thanks tons for all this excellent feedback!

James V. West

Both suggestions have their merits.

If the goal is to discourage players with larger pools from gambling all their dice all the time, then I like Mike's version (hose severity proportional to number of dice gambled) because it accomplishes its objective without penalizing the players with empty pools. Empty pool players are not discouraged from asking for rolls and seizing opportunities to rebuild their pools.

If the goal is to encourage players to keep some ungambled dice in their pool (thereby not gambling all their dice all the time), then the other suggestion works better, as it penalizes those players with lower pools. You can still gamble a lot of dice, but you can choose to limit your consequences by keeping a die or two in your pool.

Best,

Blake

I'm opposed to "hosing rules" for this game.

As it stands, everything is black and white. Roll a 1 and succeed, don't and fail. Failed gambles loose all that was gambled, successes yield one die. I want to keep it this way, no scaling.

The idea that if you bottom out in your pool you get a serious hosing is not actually part of the rules. Its just a kind of assumption. Not a bad one, of course, but not a rule. As I've said, this is purely a matter of style. You could interpret the die rolls in any number of ways. You could say that sixes on a failed roll indicate extreme failures. YOu could say that multiple ones indicates a great success. Those ideas are not part of the rules, but I can easily see people using them anyway because its an obvious assumption. "Whoah! I got three successes on that roll! I want a serious MoV!".

James V. West

I completely understand your point, James, and I think I'm largely in agreement with you. Nevertheless, I've found this thread quite interesting from a game design standpoint. What's especially nice about The Pool is that it's open to quite a bit of house rule modification without losing the essential elegance of the system. This discussion in tandem with the "Flipping the Pool" thread has underlined the innate flexibility of the Pool universe.

Kudos. This is great stuff.

Best,

Blake

What Blake said, James.

I'm sorry if we've taken off with your game and begun to abuse it in all sorts of unseemly manners (especially to the extent that I may have instigated some of it). But take it as a compliment; we wouldn't be interested if the basic ideas weren't really important.

Once you've published something, you can't expect people not to tinker. Not that it means anything. You could keep The Pool as is and you'd still have a good game. If you decide to incorporate any good ideas that come up with or without your own spin, more power to you. The game is yours, do with it as you will.

What you have written currently is The Pool, and I think everyone understands that. Anything else proposed here is just our wacky ideas for house-rules or purely theoretical. No need to point out that how Paul plays is unorthodox. We all knew that, anyhow. :wink:

Mike

I'm with you Mike! I love all this discussion. Keep shredding The Pool until you get sick of it!

I'm listening to every single idea and suggestion from all of you. I like the game very much. The night I wrote the first version I grinned to myself because it just seemed right. Now that its being played, I can see the downsides to some of it and I'm chomping at the bit to fix those glitches. So far I've suggested a few things and most of them have been shot down--and for good reason. I often leap before I look. Its a +3 Trait of mine :wink:.

Now back to trying to fix the die pool mechanic so that Moose can kill more bastards.

James V. West