In this thread, I'll be presenting some statistical data on using d6 dice pools for various purposes. The main reason to do this is to have a good resource to understand what happens to the probabilities as you tweak the parameters.
I'll use the following notations:
DicePool(n,d6) refers to a roll of n dice, each a d6. If for any reason I need to specify the results, it would be in list form, such as:
DicePool(3,d6) gives (2,6,3), meaning three dice were rolled and the results were a 2, a 6, and a 3.
At present, the dice in our pools will always be d6. This might change, but only if for some reason we decide the d6 just aren't working out. For now, that's just a fixed element of the mechanics. Increasing the size of the dice won't change much, but the probability increments would be smaller.
The dice pool mechanic is something like this:
Successes = #(DicePool(n,d6) + modifiers >= target)
That reads as: Successes is the number of results in the dice pool that meet the target number. If there is a modifier, it is added to each result from the dice pool before comparing. For my first posts, I'll ignore the modifier. Effectively the modifier just reduces the target number that you need to roll.
Depending on the task, the number of successes can be interpreted in different ways. For example, one proposal for combat requires a certain minimum number of successes to hit. Fewer than the required successes means you don't hit.
In this case, we'll be interested in questions like these:
1. How likely is a given combatant (fixed size of dice pool) to hit, given the defender's target number?
2. How does this change if I raise or lower the targt number? Or equivalently, how does this change if the attacker gets a stat increase or spell or something that increases or decreases his modifier?
3. How does this change if I change the number of successes needed to hit?
4. How does this change if the attacker increases his dice pool? Or if some effect decreases the dice pool?
There will be other scenarios, such as damage rolls or skill checks, where the number of successes might be interpreted differently. I'll cover those later, because the questions we'd be asking might be different. In my next post, I'll start laying out some results.
In our dice pool mechanic, there are effectively three inputs:
1. Number of dice in the pool.
2. Target number.
3. Number of successes needed.
Modifiers to the dice pool are another input, but from the probability standpoint they only lower the effective target number. So in all my analysis I'll assume that the modifier is 0.
To plot this fully would be a three dimensional grid - but since holographic displays are not yet a reality, I'll be breaking this down into bit size chewy bits.
The first things to note are the obvious ones. There is no possibility of success if the target number is 7 or higher (after taking into account any modifiers). Also, there is no possibility of success if the number of required successes is greater than the size of your dice pool. These things seem obvious, but they will be serious constraints on the design of the system, because impossible tasks just aren't much fun.
(Shadowrun uses d6 dice pools, but they overcome this particular limit by using open-ended rolls - for each 6 you roll, you can roll another die and add it to the total. This way, there's no theoretical upper limit.)
So, without further ado, here's my first probability table. This one is for rolling DicePool(3,d6) against various target number, requiring only a single success. That's an easy number of successes and a moderate sized dice pool.
[table=Successes >= 1]
[tr][th]Target[/th][td]6[/td][td]5[/td][td]4[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]42%[/td][td]70%[/td][td]88%[/td][td]96%[/td][td]99.5%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Obviously, with only a single success required, this isn't too hard, even with the hardest difficulty. Reducing the difficulty (or equivalently, increasing modifiers) rapidly increases the probability even more.
Now lets try that with more difficulty. We'll leave the same dice pool, but require 2 successes.
[table=Successes >= 2]
[tr][th]Target[/th][td]6[/td][td]5[/td][td]4[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]7.5%[/td][td]26%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]74%[/td][td]93%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
A big difference! At the high difficulty, it has gone from easy (2 out of every 5) to pretty darn hard (1 out of 12 or so). Even so, if the difficulty drops to 4 (or the attacker has a +2 modifier over the defender), the probability is still fairly high.
Lastly, try it with three required successes. That means you'd have to succeed on every die:
[table=Successes >= 3]
[tr][th]Target[/th][td]6[/td][td]5[/td][td]4[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]0.5%[/td][td]3.7%[/td][td]12%[/td][td]30%[/td][td]58%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Here, even if the task is ridiculously easy (target of 2), there's still a good chance to fail. At the high end, this is down to just 1 in 200.
The take home lessons are probably these:
1. Changing the target number has a huge effect on the probabilities.
2. When dice pools are relatively small (3 in this case), changing the number of successes required also has a rather drastic effect.
I rather suspect that things would be rather different if dice pools were larger and the number of successes required were in the area of 1/4 to 1/2 of the number of dice in the pool. So later I will come back and try this again using a larger
dice pool, like 10d6, and successes ranging from 3 to 5 or so.
Well, as a baseline what about two out of three successes where playres don't really need to hit higher than four?
I mean, all this *is* pre-modifier.
This puts the target number for the average task at seven (on the assumption that most people will have at least +3 mods, where the extraordinary will have seven).
Quote from: snakefingIn our dice pool mechanic, there are effectively three inputs:
1. Number of dice in the pool.
2. Target number.
3. Number of successes needed.
Modifiers to the dice pool are another input, but from the probability standpoint they only lower the effective target number. So in all my analysis I'll assume that the modifier is 0.
To plot this fully would be a three dimensional grid - but since holographic displays are not yet a reality, I'll be breaking this down into bit size chewy bits.
The first things to note are the obvious ones. There is no possibility of success if the target number is 7 or higher (after taking into account any modifiers). Also, there is no possibility of success if the number of required successes is greater than the size of your dice pool. These things seem obvious, but they will be serious constraints on the design of the system, because impossible tasks just aren't much fun.
(Shadowrun uses d6 dice pools, but they overcome this particular limit by using open-ended rolls - for each 6 you roll, you can roll another die and add it to the total. This way, there's no theoretical upper limit.)
So, without further ado, here's my first probability table. This one is for rolling DicePool(3,d6) against various target number, requiring only a single success. That's an easy number of successes and a moderate sized dice pool.
[table=Successes >= 1]
[tr][th]Target[/th][td]6[/td][td]5[/td][td]4[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]42%[/td][td]70%[/td][td]88%[/td][td]96%[/td][td]99.5%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Obviously, with only a single success required, this isn't too hard, even with the hardest difficulty. Reducing the difficulty (or equivalently, increasing modifiers) rapidly increases the probability even more.
Now lets try that with more difficulty. We'll leave the same dice pool, but require 2 successes.
[table=Successes >= 2]
[tr][th]Target[/th][td]6[/td][td]5[/td][td]4[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]7.5%[/td][td]26%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]74%[/td][td]93%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
A big difference! At the high difficulty, it has gone from easy (2 out of every 5) to pretty darn hard (1 out of 12 or so). Even so, if the difficulty drops to 4 (or the attacker has a +2 modifier over the defender), the probability is still fairly high.
Lastly, try it with three required successes. That means you'd have to succeed on every die:
[table=Successes >= 3]
[tr][th]Target[/th][td]6[/td][td]5[/td][td]4[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]0.5%[/td][td]3.7%[/td][td]12%[/td][td]30%[/td][td]58%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Here, even if the task is ridiculously easy (target of 2), there's still a good chance to fail. At the high end, this is down to just 1 in 200.
The take home lessons are probably these:
1. Changing the target number has a huge effect on the probabilities.
2. When dice pools are relatively small (3 in this case), changing the number of successes required also has a rather drastic effect.
I rather suspect that things would be rather different if dice pools were larger and the number of successes required were in the area of 1/4 to 1/2 of the number of dice in the pool. So later I will come back and try this again using a larger
dice pool, like 10d6, and successes ranging from 3 to 5 or so.
Low Dice, Low Number: Easy Task. Who can do it? ANYONE.
Low Dice, High Number: Intuitive Difficulties. Like art, you either have it or you don't.
High Dice, Low Number: Complex Difficulties. You either know it or you don't.
High Dice, High Number: Extreme Difficulty. You gotta know what you're doing, and even that might fail!
So, as a baseline, let's do the 3d6 with starting bonuses ranging from 2 to 7, with three as the norm.
A 1 out of three DC 7 check.
Inept people (2) succeed 70% of the time.
Average people (3) succeed 88% of the time.
(4) succeeds 96% of the time.
(5) succeeds 99.5% of the time.
(6 and 7) succeed automatically.
A 1 out of three DC 8 check.
Inept people (2) succeed 42% of the time.
Average people (3) succeed 70% of the time.
(4) succeeds 88% of the time.
(5) succeeds 96% of the time.
(6) succeeds 99.5% of the time.
(7) succeeds automatically.
A 1 out of three DC 9 check.
Inept people fail.
Average people (3) succeed 42% of the time.
(4) succeeds 70% of the time.
(5) succeeds 88% of the time.
(6) succeeds 96% of the time.
(7) succeeds 99.5% of the time.
A one out of three DC 10 check.
Inept people fail.
Average people fail.
(4) succeeds 42% of the time.
(5) succeeds 70% of the ttime.
(6) succeeds 88% of the time.
(7) succeeds 96% of the time.
A one out of three DC 11 check.
(2, 3, and 4) fail.
(5) succeeds 42% of the time.
(6) succeeds 70% of the time.
(7) succeeds 88% of the time.
In one out of three checks, a range of 7 through 11 looks about right for DCs. A 7 results in something average people can do most of the time, that inept people can do a little less than half the time. An 11 is something that only the better half of society can even do, but once you can do it it's pretty easy.
A 2 out of three DC 7 check.
This means that inept people (2) succeed 26% of the time.
This means that most people (3) succeed 50% of the time.
(4) succeeds 74% of the time.
(5) succeeds 93& of the time.
(6 and 7) succeed 100% of the time.
A 2 out of three DC 8 check.
This means inept people (2) succeed 7.5% of the time.
This means that most people (3) succeed 26% of the time.
(4) succeeds 50% of the time.
(5) succeeds 74% of the time.
(6) succeeds 93% of the time.
(7) succeeds 100% of the time.
A 2 out of three DC 9 check.
Inept people fail.
Most people succeed 7.5% of the time.
(4) succeeds 26% of the time.
(5) succeeds 50% of the time.
(6) succeeds 74% of the time.
(7) succeeds 93% of the time.
A 2 out of three DC 10 check.
Inept people fail.
Most people fail.
(4) succeeds 7.5% of the time.
(5) succeeds 26% of the time.
(6) succeeds 50% of the time.
(7) succeeds 76% of the time.
A 2 out of three DC 11 check.
(1-4) does not succeed.
(5) succeeds 7.5% of the time.
(6) succeeds 26% of the time.
(7) succeeds 50% of the time.
Two out of three checks should probably remain within the range of seven and eleven. Checks of seven leave a 50% chance of success for the ordinary character. Checks of eleven leave a 50% chance of success for the extraordinary character.
A three out of three DC 7 check.
Inept people succeed 3.7% of the time.
Average people succeed 12% of the time.
(4) succeeds 30% of the time.
(5) succeeds 58% of the time.
(6 and 7) succeed 100% of the time.
A three out of three DC 8 check.
Inept people succeed 0.5% of the time.
Average people succeed 3.7% of the time.
(4) succeeds 12% of the time.
(5) succeeds 30% of the time.
(6) succeeds 58% of the time.
(7) succeeds automatically.
A three out of three DC 9 check.
Inept people fail.
Average people succeed 0.5% of the time.
(4) succeeds 3.7% of the time.
(5) succeeds 12% of the time.
(6) succeeds 30% of the time.
A three out of three DC 10 check.
Inept and average people fail.
(4) succeeds 0.5% of the time.
(5) succeeds 3.7% of the time.
(6) succeeds 12% of the time.
(7) succeeds 30% of the time.
A three out of three DC 11 check.
(2, 3, and 4) fail.
(5) succeeds 0.5% of the time.
(6) succeeds 3.7% of the time.
(7) succeeds 12% of the time.
Three in three checks should remain in the 7-10 range, except for truly extraodinary things.
Now, with this as a baseline, what happens when we add one more die?
What happens when we up the required number of successes?
Thus far, I'm seeing stat generation that starts with two points per score and distributes three.
Then a three dice pool with a minimum DC of 7 and a maximum DC of 11.
Success, or degrees thereof, might rely on number of successes as well as DCs.
Thoughts?
Yes?
No?
[blockquote=beejazz]
Low Dice, Low Number: Easy Task. Who can do it? ANYONE.
Low Dice, High Number: Intuitive Difficulties. Like art, you either have it or you don't.
High Dice, Low Number: Complex Difficulties. You either know it or you don't.
High Dice, High Number: Extreme Difficulty. You gotta know what you're doing, and even that might fail!
[/blockquote]
I think I might analyze this a bit differently:
1 Success needed: This is never very hard, even at the highest target number and lowest dice. Appropriate to tasks that are fairly easy if you've got the prerequisites. For example, crafting a basic item - if you've got the skills and tools, you can do it pretty well. Might also be appropriate for fairly easy things if they are done in a hurry. For example, jumping from a small height, there is a small chance if you are clumsy that you might twist an ankle.
2 Successes needed: This can be fairly hard at low dice pools, even if the target number isn't that high. As your dice pool increases, this won't be that bad. For example, two successes with (net) target number 6 and dice pool 4d6 sounds pretty hard (two 6's out of four dice) but in fact it succeeds about 1 in 7 - which is uncommon but not outrageous. This is probably appropriate for things that are contested or considered challenging but not too hard. For example, crafting a quality weapon or cutting a fine gem. Or things like Observe checks.
3 Successes or more: This will generally be pretty hard unless the dice pool is pretty high or the target number is quite low. I'll have to look at this in more detail. I suspect that in such cases you might valuably look at this in terms of Successes as a fraction of your dice pool. (That is, what fraction of your dice have to be successes.)
When I have time, I'll start looking at stats as you vary successes required and dice pools. But right now, I've got to make the kids some dinner.
I was just thinking, in each instance, keeping the numbers needed and successes needed identical, what happens for each die you add. Because progression and training go on number of dice (or such is my understanding thus far).
Here's my understanding thus far:
[spoiler=SO FAR]
ABILITIES:
Strength
Coordination
Reflex
Toughness
Luck
Characters start with two points in each and have three points to distribute.
ROLLING:
We roll on dicepools of 3d6. Difficulties run from 7 to 11 and from one to three required successes. In combat or anything else, dicerolls are always on the offensive side of the check.
ADVANCEMENT:
Characters advance via character points. They can spend points to add extra dice to their pools or gain new special abilities. Also, they can spend character points on powerful magic or technological items (as far as money goes, adventurers live hand-to-mouth, often having to fight just to eat... even if they did have money, you don't just go out and buy the Lance of Longinus).
ADVENTURE POINTS:
On a critical success (a success with four dice) a character gets an adventure point. A character can have a miximum number of adventure points equal to his luck score. To use adventure points, a character must declare that he is using them and what he intends to do. He automatically succeeds. This costs the diferrence between the number of actual successes and the number of required successes.
COMBAT:
Combat runs like everything else, rolls of the d6.
Attack= Ability+Pool vs. Reflex+Armor
Damage= Ability+Pool vs. Toughness+Armor
The number of successes required to hit would depend on armor (I suppose) and critical hits happen only on four successes.
Damage done is equal to the number of damage successes, where the damage dice pool is determined by weapon (between one and five, I guess)
Hit points themselves run on something like the vitality and wound points in Star Wars. They'd be some fixed number each, with fewer wounds than vitality.
Critical successes (for AP, anyway) don't happen on either of these two checks.
MOVEMENT:
A character gets 10 action points a round, and can do anything in a round that adds up to less than 10. A character can move one square for every point he spends, and can attack for seven points (though this figure could probably be reduced). A turn lasts five seconds.
We may include the option to act out of turn by spending five points, but that's a maybe.
How we determine who goes first, I don't know yet.
[/spoiler]
And as for advancement, extra dice costing x^2*10, where x is the number of extra dice?
So 1=10, 2=40, 3=90, 4=160.
And only teh spend of 1/3 character points on any one thing?
Just a thought.
Some quick results, organized by # of successes:
[table=1 Success]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]6[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]742%[/td][td]70%[/td][td]88%[/td][td]96%[/td][td]99.5%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(4,d6)[/th][td]52%[/td][td]80%[/td][td]94%[/td][td]99%[/td][td]99.9%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(5,d6)[/th][td]60%[/td][td]87%[/td][td]97%[/td][td]99.5%[/td][td]100%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]67%[/td][td]91%[/td][td]98%[/td][td]99.9%[/td][td]100%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=2 Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]6[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]7.5%[/td][td]26%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]74%[/td][td]93%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(4,d6)[/th][td]13%[/td][td]41%[/td][td]69%[/td][td]89%[/td][td]98%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(5,d6)[/th][td]20%[/td][td]54%[/td][td]81%[/td][td]95%[/td][td]99.5%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]26%[/td][td]65%[/td][td]89%[/td][td]98%[/td][td]99.9%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=3 Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]6[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(3,d6)[/th][td]0.5%[/td][td]4%[/td][td]12%[/td][td]30%[/td][td]58%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(4,d6)[/th][td]1.5%[/td][td]11%[/td][td]31%[/td][td]59%[/td][td]87%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(5,d6)[/th][td]3.5%[/td][td]21%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]79%[/td][td]96%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]6%[/td][td]32%[/td][td]66%[/td][td]90%[/td][td]99%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=4 Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]6[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(4,d6)[/th][td]0.1%[/td][td]1.2%[/td][td]6%[/td][td]20%[/td][td]48%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(5,d6)[/th][td]0.3%[/td][td]4.5%[/td][td]19%[/td][td]46%[/td][td]80%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]0.9%[/td][td]10%[/td][td]34%[/td][td]68%[/td][td]93%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]1.8%[/td][td]17%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]82%[/td][td]98%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
As a sort of rule of thumb, it looks like adding a die more or less doubles the probability of success, at least for the harder tasks. On the other hand, a +1 modifier (reducing the net target number) seems to triple the likelihood (or more).
I've got data for 5, 6, 7 successes for up to 7d6 pools as well. We may need that when it comes to damage dice.
Doubles?!
*Jawdrop*
This will take some thinking through, no doubt!
And yes, good thoughts on the damage dice!
Well, keep in mind that the rule of thumb only applies to fairly hard tasks. For example, 3 successes using 4 dice, rolling against a 5 is hard (11%, like rolling 19 or 20 on d20). Making that 5 dice raises the probability to 21% (nearly double, more like rolling a 17 or higher on d20), but then, doubling 11% isn't that big an increase.
For tasks where the probability is less hard (like 20% or more), the doubling rule doesn't quite apply. But it is still true that this is not a system that allows for small adjustments. That's pretty much inevitable when you are using a die like d6, where even the hardest roll (needing a 6) is still 17% likely.
I don't think this is necessarily fatal to the system. But you have to accept that you aren't going to be giving out modifiers for small things like higher ground or morale bonuses. There's just no scope in the system for simulating such things. It will tend to lend a somewhat more heroic/cinematic feel, I think, because you can't get as bogged down in tactical details.
I wonder whether that makes the idea of detailed action points a little incongruous. Anyway, time enough to look at that when we get to it.
When it comes to tactics, there is the melee/ranged combat divide to explore.
Also, I suppose that for five points, a character can do shiz "out of turn."
And *some* tactical advantages can offer movement penalties and bonuses... Just some thoughts.
Any better ideas?
So, I've been thinking. Price extra dice at 10(x^2) and limit people to spending more than 1/5 their xp on one ability. So dice cost as follows:
1=10
2=40
3=90
4=160
And "the highest dice I can buy", which is bears an uncanny resemblance to "levels" runs as follows:
1=50
2=200
3=450
4=800
Sound about right?
Regarding tactics: You are right. What I should have said is that you won't be able to grub around after small tactical advantages that in d20 might give you a +1 bonus. There's no way in this system to represent such small advantages.
There's still plenty of scope for tactics on the larger scale - how and when to use magic vs. arms, missile fire vs. hand to hand, an armored screen to protect more vulnerable combatants, etc. There may be some scope for tactical advantages based on initiative and so on too.
My main thinking was that if the base mechanic isn't capable of representing small advantages in combat, it might be a little inconsistent to employ tactical mechanics that try to capture equally small advantages, but in a different way.
For example, some tactical advantages could offer movement penalties or bonuses, for sure. That's not directly affected by dice pools. But if the blow-by-blow of melee is highly abstracted, and movement is highly detailed, it might create a kind of Frankenstein's monster - made of different parts that just don't seem to fit together. So we need to think about how to create movement, initiative, and other tactical rules that support the same kind of feel that dice pools are going to give to melee.
KISS.
And this doesn't seem to do it.
The more I look at this, the less I like dice pools. Not when there is a simple opposed roll system in place with a simple and convenient 5% increment built in.
QuoteAnd "the highest dice I can buy", which is bears an uncanny resemblance to "levels" runs as follows:
What is the point of getting rid of levels if you just rename them and hide them in a more complicated mechanic.
After some discreet questioning around several different kinds of boards, reduction of complications in rules is the biggest objective for those looking beyond d20.
This does not do it.
I tend to agree with you that I think dice pools of around three represent a fairly good average starting point. Maybe two dice for the least skilled, or for skills that need lots of extra training.
1 Success = easy task, generally the kind of thing that would be fairly routine for a decently trained and skilled individual.
2 Successes = moderate task, the kind of thing that would challenge a reasonably trained individual.
3 Successes = hard task, something pretty tough even for well-trained individuals.
4 Successes = very hard task, something difficult even for talented experts.
As for modifiers, there are a bunch of cases to consider:
Opposed task: Here the acting character and opposing character may both have modifiers that cancel each other out. You might expect this to have modifiers in the range -2 to +2, which is quite a wide range. (For example, if the base target number was 5, then the -2 modifier makes it impossible, while the +2 makes it very easy.)
Straight up skills: Some skills won't have a modifier (the ones that might otherwise be based on metal stats). Some skills will. The overall modifier would normally range from +2 to +5, where it exists. Otherwise, it's just 0.
Combat: Combat is a slightly different case, because you need to both hit and do damage. The multiple die rolls leads to a more complex situation that needs to be explored in detail. But generally this is fairly similar to the opposed skill case, at least in concept.
One thing to think about is using modifiers to add or remove dice from the pool instead of modifying the dice roll. This might simplify the matter of setting base difficulties.
I want to compare the dice rolls and stats needed to complete an attack in our system vs. in d20:
d20:
Attacker's BAB, determined by class and level, as modified by feats, strength, and weapon bonuses.
Attacker's damage dice, determined by weapon, as modified by feats, strength, and weapon bonuses.
Critical threat range and multiplier, determined by weapon, as modified by feats.
Defender's AC, determined by armor, as modified by dexterity , natural armor if any, and armor bonuses.
Defender's DR, if any.
Situational modifiers, such as spells, flanking, aid another, etc.
Die roll d20 to hit.
Die roll (damage dice) to damage.
Our system:
Mostly TBD
Attacker's COORD modifier (feats to modify?).
Attacker's dice pool size, determined by skills and possibly weapon type.
Attacker's STR modifier for damage.
Attacker's damage dice pool sice, determined by weapon type and probably modified for skills.
Defender's REACT modifier (feats to modify?).
Defender's TOUGH modifier for damage resistance.
Defender's Armor for damage resistance.
Dice Pool roll Nd6 to attack.
Dice Pool roll Nd6 for damage.
I'm sure I missed something in there. I just want to make sure we're not creating something meant to be simple that turns out to be complicated.
Meh. DnD rolls attack vs. AC. Then rolls damage.
So do we, except damage based on # of successes.
No biggie, right?
Anyway, "when I can buy what" just bears a passing resemblance to levels, in that it can be used to categorize gross levels of power. There's a lot more subtlety and gradation here, not to mention a universal system for advancement (as opposed to feats AND skills AND class features all drawing from diferring pools, plus static attack and save progressions).
Again, tactics that focus on the melee/ranged divide and the ground and movement bonuses/penalties are good, IMHO. One opponent wants melee, one wants ranged, control of ideal ground is important.
As for skills, just straight up abilities. two to five (start two in each and three to distribute). All there needs to be.
Alot of this is that it'll be a tougher system to balance, not that it will be tough to play.
We aren't using that much more in the way of dice rolls. But we do have some different ways to modify them. I'm just trying to keep track of it so it doesn't get out of control.
Mechanically it is probably sound to limit spending on any one item to some fraction of total experience. But I'm not sure that keeping track of how much total experience you have, and how much you've spent on each thing, is necessarily the best idea. I mean, I'd like to think that once I spend XP on increasing my attack dice, after that all I need to care about is what my current dice pool is, not how much it cost me to buy it.
For that reason, I'd like to try to keep those limits in the way of simple procedural things, like max buy at one time (say, only one improvement level at a time), prerequisites, etc.
So one level two die requires four level one dice, I suppose?
Not sure. It seems reasonable. At one point I floated the idea of package-type prerequisites. I didn't get much response. In this instance, it might work something like this:
Anyone can buy one die in their favorite weapon(s). That represents training or experience in a particular weapon.
The next step Advanced Melee Fighting. This requires at least one die bought in some weapon, plus some additional prereqs (undetermined at this time, effectively some other fighting feat) that represent branching out a little into general experience as a fighter.
Advanced Melee Fighting is a prerequisite for the second die in a weapon. This represents advanced training. It would also be a prereq for some of the more advanced fighting feats/skills.
Repeat this with Expert Melee Fighting, for access to the highest level of abilities, and possibly Epic Melee Fighting for access to near-miraculous levels.
If that didn't make sense, imagine it this way:
At the top of the page, we list all the basic fighting stuff: proficiencies, adding one die to the dice pool, all (or most) of the initial feats in the feat trees. These are things that anyone can take, any or all of them.
Below this, draw a line representing Advanced Melee Fighting. You have to get this before you can get any of the advanced abilities. The requirement for Advanced Melee Fighting is that you have to have, say, three of the abilities from the basic list.
Now we list all the advanced techniques: 2d6 added to dice pool for a weapon, feats from higher on the feat chains, etc. Anyone with Advanced Melee Fighting can take these, mix or match.
Draw another line for Expert Melee Fighting, then list all the expert techniques, etc.
I'm not sure this works well, I haven't worked out all the details. But the basic idea is that you can't just keep buying dice in a single weapon - to get to the Expert levels you have to be at least a little committed to combat.
Then repeat the process for Advanced Social Skills, Advanced Ranged Attack, Advanced Firearms, Advanced Spell Casting, etc. In some ways, it is kind of like a class system, since it encourages characters to choose one or two areas to advance to Expert levels in. But at least all the basic skills are open to anyone.
As for the extra dice tech tree, it could work.
Rather than specific prerequisites, though, let's just divide skills into types.
Die two of a weapon proficiency requires a certain number of combat skills with at least one die.
Rather than having one die feint, one die trip, or what have you.
Specific abilities, on the other hand, might have specific skill prereqs. "Dirty fighting" for example, may require "one die feint."
Numbers of dice are the basic stock and trade of the system, and shouldn't be too complicated or specific.
Also, I'm worried about ability scores and defense values...
If it's even possible for defense values to be low enough that automatic success happens against them, then some characters will get critted for 100% damage 100% of the time.
What ability score generation system and static modifier (like the +10 in DnD) could make this work? Without the automatic success worries.
Or would changing critical success to "four sixes" be a better idea?
I'm thinking it is time to put it together a bit, to see how things play out in various scenarios.
Proposal:
[table=Dice Pools]
[tr][td]Non-proficient[/td][td]2d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Normal[/td][td]3d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Advanced[/td][td]4d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Specialist[/td][td]5d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Legend[/td][td]6d6[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Characteristics range from 2 (fair) up to 7 (legendary).
Attack by rolling DicePool + COORD against 3 + Armor DV + TOUGH
Normally, 2 successes required. Possibly some defensive feats might increase this, but for now I'm not considering this.
So with evenly matched attributes, the target would be 3 + defensive value of armor. This would have to be limited to 1, 2, or 3. (Armor would have a higher impact on the damage side.)
Anyway, there's something concrete to look at. How does it play out if the attacker or defender has superior attributes?
[blockquote=CYMRO]
The more I look at this, the less I like dice pools. Not when there is a simple opposed roll system in place with a simple and convenient 5% increment built in.
[/blockquote]
As I've said before, I'm not the world's biggest dice pool fan. But they do appeal to some people. Right now I'm interested in seeing what is the best we can do with them. My biggest beef with them is that if you get to where people are rolling 6,7,8 dice or more, that's really no easier than doing d20 + 17, compare with 31.
From the simplicity standpoint, you can simplify a lot by not modifying the dice rolls. Use modifiers to add or remove dice or change the successes required.
QuoteAfter some discreet questioning around several different kinds of boards, reduction of complications in rules is the biggest objective for those looking beyond d20.
This does not do it.
I'm always a little cautious about taking people's word for it on stuff like that. What they usually mean is, "Get rid of all the stuff I don't want, and keep the stuff I do." Which works fine for them, but no one really agrees on what is necessary and what isn't.
When I worked on Ysgarth, the main author was just dead set against the tactical display, miniatures, or anything of the kind. Too wargame-y for him, I guess. On the other hand, I like it. Not necessarily the strict grid and movement rules of D&D 3.5, but at least some visual display makes it more interesting for me. I don't need miniatures - just Monopoly pieces works great. But something.
Simplification is good - until it removes the stuff you care about.
Quote from: snakefingI'm thinking it is time to put it together a bit, to see how things play out in various scenarios.
Proposal:
[table=Dice Pools]
[tr][td]Non-proficient[/td][td]2d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Normal[/td][td]3d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Advanced[/td][td]4d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Specialist[/td][td]5d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Legend[/td][td]6d6[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Characteristics range from 2 (fair) up to 7 (legendary).
Attack by rolling DicePool + COORD against 3 + Armor DV + TOUGH
Normally, 2 successes required. Possibly some defensive feats might increase this, but for now I'm not considering this.
So with evenly matched attributes, the target would be 3 + defensive value of armor. This would have to be limited to 1, 2, or 3. (Armor would have a higher impact on the damage side.)
Anyway, there's something concrete to look at. How does it play out if the attacker or defender has superior attributes?
Okay... at first I was going for the two-to-five range for a cleaner look... but three to seven may work (we have to work out the consequences)...
For base dice, I've always been partial to three. With a range of possible target numbers. The lowest requiring the highest ability score to roll a two. The highest requiring the lowest ability to roll a six. In defense values, I would go for something similar. I like your idea to have both a base modifier and armor values. And since these are static values, they could easily be written on to the character sheet.
As for analysing the superior values... I'm a little short on sleep at the moment.
As for "six, seven, eight dice"... I would almost be willing to propose a cap somewhere around six total.
And the "vs. tough" roll determines damage by number of success.
It's the "vs. ref" roll that would determine hit/miss.
Otherwise, why have ref at all?
EUREKA!
Abilities range from three to six.
All abilities start at three and then there are three additional points to distribute.
The base defense modifier is three.
Armor values range from one to three, with corresponding required successes. Maybe a max reflex for each (5 for armor value 1, 4 for armor value 2, 3 for armor value 3).
Difficulties for skills still range from seven to nine. Still between one and three required successes. Gives us nine difficulties to work with.
And critical successes on three natural sixes.
Dice still priced on the 10(x^2) formula. First die has no requirements. Second die requires three to five skills of the same type (combat, movement, technology, etc.) with at least one die. Third die is the same, but requires two dice in three to five skills of the same type. Default dice, as always, is three.
Weapons: Each weapon group is a skill. Nonproficiency starts at three dice, like any other skill. Exotic weapon group allows players to apply their extra dice to exotic weapons of the appropriate group. A similar feature may allow players to apply their weapon proficiencies while fighting in a mech... or for gun turrets or what have you.
Advantage/Disadvantage: Tactics rely on two things really: movement and movement. Action points are the most easily modified numbers for circumstance. Players might spend five to act out of turn, trip an opponent to prevent him from attacking or moving in the next turn, etc. Depending on a character's build, melee or ranged might be more ideal... hence the importance of engaging in or avoiding melee.
Alternate hit points idea: Rather than have "number of successes" to hit at all, have three teirs of hit points. This would work kind of like vitality and wound points, but there would be superficial, moderate, and vital damage. Number of successes (in the attack roll, not the damage roll) determnes which teir is hit, and if a teir is filled, damage spills over. This could be kept track of whith checked boxes on the character sheet. Depending on which teir is damaged, characters may get action point penalties. -2 for superficial, -4 for moderate and -6 for vital seems like a good baseline. Just a thought.
QuoteArmor values range from one to three, with corresponding required successes. Maybe a max reflex for each (5 for armor value 1, 4 for armor value 2, 3 for armor value 3).
This means that if your REACT score is high, increasing armor won't decrease your chances of getting hit. The increase of armor defense is cancelled by decrease of effective REACT. Of course, it would still decrease the chances of being damaged. That could work, but it would be something to watch in terms of balance.
QuoteAlternate hit points idea: Rather than have "number of successes" to hit at all, have three teirs of hit points. This would work kind of like vitality and wound points, but there would be superficial, moderate, and vital damage. Number of successes (in the attack roll, not the damage roll) determnes which teir is hit, and if a teir is filled, damage spills over. This could be kept track of whith checked boxes on the character sheet. Depending on which teir is damaged, characters may get action point penalties. -2 for superficial, -4 for moderate and -6 for vital seems like a good baseline. Just a thought.
Hmmm. Not sure I like the additional book-keeping.
Well... It is an *altenate* system after all. Point is a greater degree of realism, and checkboxes on character sheets would minimize any extra complexity. With any luck. It also minimizes bookkeeping on armor stats.
In terms of armor providing no progressive benefit... not to difficulty to hit, but for number of successes. Tradeoff in AP, I guess.
In settings without armor (modern, etc.) we might use reflex+luck for defense and above hit point system. Just a thought.
Some simulated combat numbers:
Two chumps swinging their fists in anger. Assume that COORD attack bonuses and REACT defense cancel each other out. No armor. 3d6 pools, 2 successes to hit. Each turn they have a 74% chance to hit, Damage would be 1d6 dice pool, non-lethal. No armor means TOUGH is the target for damage. Assume this is 4 out of range 3 to 6. Then for each hit their is 50% chance of doing 1 VP damage.
Average damage per round is 0.37 points.
Now, we have an adventurer fighting a conscript guard. Assume that the adventurer has a +1 advantage in both COORD and REACT. The adventurer has medium armor, but average TOUGH and STRENGTH, and 4d6 attack pool with his sword. The guard has 3d6 attack pool and only light armor.
The adventurer still has a target number of 3. His COORD advantage cancels out the armor defense. With 4d6 he's got an 89% chance to score 2+ successes each round. The guard has 3d6, but he needs a target number of 6 (increased by two for the armor and one for the adventurer's REACT advantage). With 3d6 dice pool he's only got a 7.5% chance to hit.
The adventurer has 3d6 dice pool against 5 target number to hit (TOUGH + light armor). His average damage (assuming he hits) is exactly 1.0. The guard has 3d6 dice pool against 6 target number. Assuming he hits, his average damage is 0.50.
So taking all into consideration, the adventurer averages 0.89 damage per round, while the guard averages 0.04 damage per round.
This is a pretty heavy 20:1 advantage for the adventurer. The advantages I gave him were:
1d6 extra attack die
+1 additional COORD
+1 additional REACT
+1 additional ARMOR
If we assume that armor does not affect attack rolls, we can get some different numbers. In this case I'm just assuming that any defensive advantage supplied by armor is negated by its encumbrance effects. It still affects damage rolls.
In this case the adventurer's attack target number decreases to 2, nearly a sure thing, but he doesn't gain much advantage from that because his probability of success was pretty high anyway. The guard's target number goes down to 5, but that's a bigger gain for him - his chance to hit goes up to 26%. In this case the adventurer's average damage per round goes to 1.0 more or less, while the guard's is not .13. Still a high advantage for the adventurer, but more like 8:1.
Obviously the advantages would increase all the more if I gave the adventurer more advantages on defense, making it effectively impossible for the guard to damage him at all.
Anyway, that's something to look at. It helps to show the level of granularity of the system.
Before I write up an example of my own and check, could we get an update back on the probabilities to include progressive dice increases for one required success, target number two and 6d6 for two successes, and result:2 for three successes.
Also, remember that granularity need not be limited to the probability of hitting or missing but in the number of possible outcomes. There is zero granularity in chess, after all. You move into your opponent's square and you capture their piece. But the number of possible results? Infinite.
Likewise, penalties to a player in armor applying to action points (and the necessary max reflex to keep defenses in the nine-and-under range) could limit the number of times you can attack, whether you can attack and move in the same turn, how far you can move, whether you can afford to attack or defend out-of-turn, etc.
Also... this is an obviously inferior opponent. Probably faced in groups of twenty. Point is, if he's falling short in two places, he's probably compensating... in this case in Strength and Toughness. Or maybe just one of the two.
Okay, another new system. Greater 'granularity' as you put it.
Start with 5d10 dicepools.
Ability scores range from 7 to 10 (start at seven, three points to distribute).
Target numbers from 12 to 16 (5 possible numbers).
Target number of successes from one to five (five possible numbers.)
25 possible difficulties for four possible ability values (a total of 100 possibilities, not counting further dice progression).
Base defense modifier is +5.
Three types of armor require 2, 3, or 4 successes. Armor penalties apply to action points only.
Vital weapon stats are damage dice, weapon group, and action point cost to attack (to account for reload times and make less damaging weapons still attractive).
Note that while d10s are less accessible than d6s, they offer a greater range of possibilities, and can double as percentile rolls as the need arises.
...Just some thoughts.
Okay, I went back and edited the original probability tables to add some additional data. Just to keep it all in one place.
As far as my example combat goes: This is clearly a case of a superior opponent vs. inferior. But in DnD terms it is like a level 2 PC fighter vs. a level 1 standard array warrior. The adventurer has purchased the following advantages:
Used his initial character points to give him above average COORD and REACT.
Spent some of his initial XP on +1d6 added to his dice pool for his weapon.
Spent some of his initial wealth on medium armor.
It really isn't out of the question, in my mind, that a PC character could be this good right out of the gate - without ever having earned an XP in anger. I'm not surprised that he is superior to John Q. Henchman, but I was a little surprised to see how much of a difference it makes.
As for granularity, what I mean by this is the size of the "grains", that is, the smallest possible adjustments you can make - like increasing the task difficulty by 1, or adding one die to the pool, or reducing the required successes by one. It's not about number of possible outcomes, but rather how much a GM can "fine-tune" the difficulty of an encounter.
Your latest proposal will be more granular in this sense in several ways. Changing to d10 means that adding or subtracting +/- 1 to net target numbers makes a smaller difference. Using larger dice pools will be more granular - adding or removing one die will make less difference out of a large dice pool than a smaller one. And introducing larger numbers of required successes also makes it more granular.
At the same time, it makes the system a little more unwieldy.
Quote from: snakefingOkay, I went back and edited the original probability tables to add some additional data. Just to keep it all in one place.
As far as my example combat goes: This is clearly a case of a superior opponent vs. inferior. But in DnD terms it is like a level 2 PC fighter vs. a level 1 standard array warrior. The adventurer has purchased the following advantages:
Used his initial character points to give him above average COORD and REACT.
Spent some of his initial XP on +1d6 added to his dice pool for his weapon.
Spent some of his initial wealth on medium armor.
It really isn't out of the question, in my mind, that a PC character could be this good right out of the gate - without ever having earned an XP in anger. I'm not surprised that he is superior to John Q. Henchman, but I was a little surprised to see how much of a difference it makes.
As for granularity, what I mean by this is the size of the "grains", that is, the smallest possible adjustments you can make - like increasing the task difficulty by 1, or adding one die to the pool, or reducing the required successes by one. It's not about number of possible outcomes, but rather how much a GM can "fine-tune" the difficulty of an encounter.
Your latest proposal will be more granular in this sense in several ways. Changing to d10 means that adding or subtracting +/- 1 to net target numbers makes a smaller difference. Using larger dice pools will be more granular - adding or removing one die will make less difference out of a large dice pool than a smaller one. And introducing larger numbers of required successes also makes it more granular.
At the same time, it makes the system a little more unwieldy.
In terms of buying extra ability scores with CP in the d6 system... increases to ability scores *are* a pretty big deal. Even if we were to allow it... sure as hell not right off the bat. In terms of the dice pools, keep in mind that extra dice apply only to attacking. Not damage.
In terms of the d10s... I actually think this might work better. Defense values and armor both have a slightly more intuitive feel. Also, we have more to work with from a design standpoint. Small bonuses to dice and abilities won't mean a 20:1 advantage. Also, like I said before, 2d10 can be used for percentile rolls as neccessary.
anyway, d6 is a little clunky. d10 really only looks good so far I know, but at least it's got that much. Unless you have some alternate proposal?
One other point:
More or less granular is not necessarily better or worse. It's just different. A combat system that is less granular means that combat will be a little less prominent I think - it is more likely that the side with the statistical advantage will just be overwhelmingly more likely to win. So there won't be as much uncertainty or drama in the combats themselves.
This just means that the game will play a little differently. Players will have to scheme and plan to try to gain that statistical advantage, or counteract the opponent's advantage. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does change the focus of the game.
Err... Yeah. "Superior Opponent Wins (Always)" does not mesh with "Tactical Movement" or "Fighting Kills People." The latter two are really what I'm looking for. Again, 'granularity' means a couple of things, as I see it. First, we need to go into more detail because there are more possible outcomes. Second, we have a little more freedom in design because little things aren't 20:1 nor does "one rank" in a skill increase the likelihood of success twofold or what have you. It's hard to represent anything numerically when "+1" equals "win"...
I'm seeing merit in the granular, myself.
First, is there a reason for building entirely new RPG? There are tons of existing ones out there. I can give pointers towards free ones.
I personally enjoy system crafting, so this is not complaining. Just curious.
Some scattered thoughts:
The chance of success can be manipulated in several ways: Number of dice, target number, number of successes required/taken away (e.g. shooting a skeleton with a bow will give normal sucesses, but two of them will be simply ignored). This is not necessary. One method is usually enough, two should be sufficient for most purposes.
Changing the TN (target number) is dangerous, due to 7 being impossible and 1 automatic. My suggestion is to make target number fixed or uniquely determined by single number (attribute, skill, equipment, but only single thing).
This would leave number of dice and number of successes as the variables.
One option: Positive circumstances give bonus dice, negative ones increase the successes needed.
Umm... This particular thread has been pretty much abandoned in favor of one for 5d10 pools.
Also, we know you can shift both TN and number of successes. Lately, we've been discussing roll-unders, where you roll under your ability score and aim to hit a variable number of successes. Number of dice would start at five and increase with skill ranks.
Except for CYMRO. He's gone on some kind of wild percentile roll tangent. Which is fine; I'll still participate in that too... I just wanna make use of these pools and such.
As for why a new system... I prefer to ask "why not?"
One final request and I won't bug you anymore on pools:
Pool size between 6d6 and 9d6.
Roll at or under numbers between 2 and 5.
Successes between one and nine (just to be sure).
I just need to see how it'd work. Won't bug ya no more after that.
Will do. My memory stick is not with me right now, so I'll have to wait till I get home.
Thanks man. I owe ya for all this.
Math.
D6 dice pools, roll low. Dice pool sizes ranging from 6d6 to 9d6, for all target numbers
[table=1+ Success]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]99.9%[/td][td]98%[/td][td]91%[/td][td]67%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]100%[/td][td]99.2%[/td][td]94%[/td][td]72%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]100%[/td][td]99.6%[/td][td]96%[/td][td]77%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]100%[/td][td]99.8%[/td][td]97%[/td][td]81%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=2+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]99.9%[/td][td]98%[/td][td]89%[/td][td]65%[/td][td]26%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]99.3%[/td][td]94%[/td][td]74%[/td][td]33%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]99.7%[/td][td]96%[/td][td]80%[/td][td]40%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]99.9%[/td][td]98%[/td][td]86%[/td][td]46%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=3+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]99.1%[/td][td]90%[/td][td]66%[/td][td]32%[/td][td]6%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]99.8%[/td][td]95%[/td][td]77%[/td][td]43%[/td][td]10%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]98%[/td][td]86%[/td][td]53%[/td][td]13%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]100%[/td][td]99.2%[/td][td]91%[/td][td]62%[/td][td]18%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=4+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]94%[/td][td]68%[/td][td]34%[/td][td]10%[/td][td]0.9%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]98%[/td][td]83%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]17%[/td][td]1.8%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]99.5%[/td][td]91%[/td][td]64%[/td][td]26%[/td][td]3.1%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]99.9%[/td][td]96%[/td][td]75%[/td][td]35%[/td][td]4.8%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=5+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]74%[/td][td]35%[/td][td]11%[/td][td]1.8%[/td][td]0.1%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]90%[/td][td]57%[/td][td]23%[/td][td]4.5%[/td][td]0.2%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]97%[/td][td]74%[/td][td]36%[/td][td]9%[/td][td]0.5%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]99.1%[/td][td]86%[/td][td]50%[/td][td]14%[/td][td]0.9%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=6+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(6,d6)[/th][td]33%[/td][td]9%[/td][td]1.6%[/td][td]0.1%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]67%[/td][td]26%[/td][td]6%[/td][td]0.7%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]87%[/td][td]47%[/td][td]14%[/td][td]2.0%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]95%[/td][td]65%[/td][td]25%[/td][td]4.2%[/td][td]0.1%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=7+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(7,d6)[/th][td]28%[/td][td]6%[/td][td]0.8%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]60%[/td][td]20%[/td][td]3.5%[/td][td]0.3%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]82%[/td][td]38%[/td][td]9%[/td][td]0.8%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=8+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(8,d6)[/th][td]23%[/td][td]3.9%[/td][td]0.4%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]54%[/td][td]14%[/td][td]2.0%[/td][td]0.1%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=9+ Successes]
[tr][th]Net Target[/th][th]5[/th][th]4[/th][th]3[/th][th]2[/th][th]1[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]DicePool(9,d6)[/th][td]19%[/td][td]2.6%[/td][td]0.2%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][td]0.0%[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Yay!