Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

a pool of dice

Expand Messages
  • freelancepope
    It s not quite what I was intending for it to be, but it seem pretty nifty. I was thumping together a simple 2d6+mod system, and wanted to fatten up the
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      It's not quite what I was intending for it to be, but it seem pretty nifty. I was thumping together a simple 2d6+mod system, and wanted to fatten up the characters a bit with some aspect-like traits, and what I ended up with might be a reasonably standalone or pluginnable method for using aspects.

      I don't recall having seen something like this on the list before, but please forgive me if I've missed something. Also, it's not strictly Fate, though it's built entirely on aspects.

      Players begin each session with their own pool of Fate Dice (d6s, distinct from the basic 2d6 used for making the ability checks). You may add the Fate Dice to any roll, in any desired amount. These are bonus or unkept dice (rolled along with the other dice, but you must drop an equal number of dice before totaling). For each relevant aspect, an unkpet die may become a kept die. After rolling the dice, any Fate dice rolled go back to the GM.

      Other uses of Fate Dice should be intuitive to most Fate players.

      Even though it's not entirely key to the functionality, I like the tactile element of it because when you're doing something more suave, you get to roll more dice. It also clarifies a bit of the FP economy (instead of saying you can only invoke an aspect once per action, each relevant aspect alters a single die).

      Though it wasn't intended to be a "skill-less" system (in, fact was meant to go along with a traditional attribute+skill mechanic), I could see this lending itself to something like that; perhaps needing to increase the number of aspects per character to account for skills, and maybe allowing aspect ranking ("this aspect changes two unkept dice into kept, instead of just one").

      I've got a few other ideas regarding this, including handling of temporary aspects, success steps based on excess dice, and open-ended rolls, but (this just having occurred to me) they aren't very complete. I also used a slightly different bit of terminology in my notes (including the super-catchy "pool of extra dice") since I didn't quite realize how much Fate was getting into it.

      It would be easy enough to scale the importance of aspects & fate dice against another task resolution system, by adjusting the availability of fate dice and aspects to balance. As a complement to a full skill system (as I was initially intending), having fewer aspects and fate dice.

      Thoughts?

      Jesse Q
    • Darren Hill
      ... It looks intriguing, but I m a bit unclear about some of the details. How many dice do people have in their pool? Is there a cost to declaring an aspect as
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 17, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1 April 2012 06:37, freelancepope <jesseq@...> wrote:
         

        It's not quite what I was intending for it to be, but it seem pretty nifty. I was thumping together a simple 2d6+mod system, and wanted to fatten up the characters a bit with some aspect-like traits, and what I ended up with might be a reasonably standalone or pluginnable method for using aspects.

        I don't recall having seen something like this on the list before, but please forgive me if I've missed something. Also, it's not strictly Fate, though it's built entirely on aspects.

        Players begin each session with their own pool of Fate Dice (d6s, distinct from the basic 2d6 used for making the ability checks). You may add the Fate Dice to any roll, in any desired amount. These are bonus or unkept dice (rolled along with the other dice, but you must drop an equal number of dice before totaling). For each relevant aspect, an unkpet die may become a kept die. After rolling the dice, any Fate dice rolled go back to the GM.

        Other uses of Fate Dice should be intuitive to most Fate players.

        Even though it's not entirely key to the functionality, I like the tactile element of it because when you're doing something more suave, you get to roll more dice. It also clarifies a bit of the FP economy (instead of saying you can only invoke an aspect once per action, each relevant aspect alters a single die).

        Though it wasn't intended to be a "skill-less" system (in, fact was meant to go along with a traditional attribute+skill mechanic), I could see this lending itself to something like that; perhaps needing to increase the number of aspects per character to account for skills, and maybe allowing aspect ranking ("this aspect changes two unkept dice into kept, instead of just one").

        I've got a few other ideas regarding this, including handling of temporary aspects, success steps based on excess dice, and open-ended rolls, but (this just having occurred to me) they aren't very complete. I also used a slightly different bit of terminology in my notes (including the super-catchy "pool of extra dice") since I didn't quite realize how much Fate was getting into it.

        It would be easy enough to scale the importance of aspects & fate dice against another task resolution system, by adjusting the availability of fate dice and aspects to balance. As a complement to a full skill system (as I was initially intending), having fewer aspects and fate dice.

        Thoughts?

        Jesse Q


        It looks intriguing, but I'm a bit unclear about some of the details.
        How many dice do people have in their pool?
        Is there a cost to declaring an aspect as one of the dice? If not, I would expect players to routinely roll 2-3 or more dice from the pool, and keep them all. Depending on how many aspects players have, it's not hard to quite reasonably declare a bunch of them relevant to any given roll a player cares for, without accusations of mini-maxing (for those who care about such things).

        Here's how I might alter it, off the top of my head (for a purer Fate feel, which may not be what you are going for). You have a pool of dice. Each time you add one to a roll, you make a declaration of why an aspect applies (just like a normal invocation), then roll the die. If the die is used to replace one of the basic two dice, it is handed over to the GM and placed in the GMs Fate Pool. (Unformed idea: You could add extra effects, like if the die is a 1-2, the aspect is affected in some way.)

        The GM can use Fate Dice, adding to her rolls in the same way. The GM should declare the circumstance it represents (which could be an invocation of the player's aspect against him). If the Fate Die is used (replacing one of the GMs two dice), it gets handed to the player who was most affected by that roll (or put in a communal player for players to draw on).
      • freelancepope
        ... So am I! ... Assuming the simple 2d6+mod thing I was initially shoehorning this into, you d probably start each session with a very small pool (perhaps 2
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 18, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
          >

          > It looks intriguing, but I'm a bit unclear about some of the details.

          So am I!

          > How many dice do people have in their pool?

          Assuming the simple 2d6+mod thing I was initially shoehorning this into, you'd probably start each session with a very small pool (perhaps 2 to 5?), as one die would be fairly mighty. If the weight of the aspects is seen as more significant (as I was suggesting that it might lend itself to an aspects-only rig), perhaps the standard 10(ish), and a broader range of TNs.

          > Is there a cost to declaring an aspect as one of the dice? If not, I would
          > expect players to routinely roll 2-3 or more dice from the pool, and keep
          > them all. Depending on how many aspects players have, it's not hard to
          > quite reasonably declare a bunch of them relevant to any given roll a
          > player cares for, without accusations of mini-maxing (for those who care
          > about such things).

          The dice from the pool are expended (and perhaps given to the GM to leverage back against the PCs) - the dice themselves are the Fate Points. This whole thing started as a way to make this sort of thing more tactile - it's fun to roll more dice when you're being awesome - instead of just spending the points and getting a flat modifier.

          But, yeah, it is easy to see an absurd roll resulting from a confluence of relevant aspects. It's a matter of figuring out a balance of the economy - in standard Fate, you *could* get +10 to a roll by going all-in.

          > Here's how I might alter it, off the top of my head (for a purer Fate feel,
          > which may not be what you are going for). You have a pool of dice. Each
          > time you add one to a roll, you make a declaration of why an aspect applies
          > (just like a normal invocation), then roll the die. If the die is used to
          > replace one of the basic two dice, it is handed over to the GM and placed

          I'd pretty much intended that *any* use of the Fate Die would be "spent" (and perhaps given as ammo to the GM).

          > in the GMs Fate Pool. (Unformed idea: You could add extra effects, like if
          > the die is a 1-2, the aspect is affected in some way.)

          I had been monkeying with additional affects on rolls of 1 and 6, but those are even more poorly formed than the rest of this.

          > The GM can use Fate Dice, adding to her rolls in the same way. The GM
          > should declare the circumstance it represents (which could be an invocation
          > of the player's aspect against him). If the Fate Die is used (replacing one
          > of the GMs two dice), it gets handed to the player who was most affected by
          > that roll (or put in a communal player for players to draw on).
          >

          The substitution-only method makes sense for that first 2d6+mod thing; it allows for a bit of an aspect-related nudge once in a while while keeping the range fairly normalized (which might seem sensible or limiting, depending on the play style). Keeps TNs tamer, and comparative/conflict rolls from getting completely ludicrous.

          But it doesn't encourage dropping a fistful of dice when you're being badass. Hmm.
        • Jeremy Whalen
          ...encourage dropping a fistful of dice when you re being badass... That is the best mechanic description I have seen in a while! There is no better way to
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 18, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            "...encourage dropping a fistful of dice when you're being badass..."

            That is the best mechanic description I have seen in a while!

            There is no better way to let your players strut their stuff then by giving them the opportunity to pick up a fist full of dice with which to dork your goons. It is tactile, makes a terrific noise hitting the table and gives the player the COOL factor of unleashing hell.

            I fully endorse this mechanic.

            Best Regards,
            Jeremy




            On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:05 AM, freelancepope <jesseq@...> wrote:

             



            --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
            >

            > It looks intriguing, but I'm a bit unclear about some of the details.

            So am I!

            > How many dice do people have in their pool?

            Assuming the simple 2d6+mod thing I was initially shoehorning this into, you'd probably start each session with a very small pool (perhaps 2 to 5?), as one die would be fairly mighty. If the weight of the aspects is seen as more significant (as I was suggesting that it might lend itself to an aspects-only rig), perhaps the standard 10(ish), and a broader range of TNs.

            > Is there a cost to declaring an aspect as one of the dice? If not, I would
            > expect players to routinely roll 2-3 or more dice from the pool, and keep
            > them all. Depending on how many aspects players have, it's not hard to
            > quite reasonably declare a bunch of them relevant to any given roll a
            > player cares for, without accusations of mini-maxing (for those who care
            > about such things).

            The dice from the pool are expended (and perhaps given to the GM to leverage back against the PCs) - the dice themselves are the Fate Points. This whole thing started as a way to make this sort of thing more tactile - it's fun to roll more dice when you're being awesome - instead of just spending the points and getting a flat modifier.

            But, yeah, it is easy to see an absurd roll resulting from a confluence of relevant aspects. It's a matter of figuring out a balance of the economy - in standard Fate, you *could* get +10 to a roll by going all-in.

            > Here's how I might alter it, off the top of my head (for a purer Fate feel,
            > which may not be what you are going for). You have a pool of dice. Each
            > time you add one to a roll, you make a declaration of why an aspect applies
            > (just like a normal invocation), then roll the die. If the die is used to
            > replace one of the basic two dice, it is handed over to the GM and placed

            I'd pretty much intended that *any* use of the Fate Die would be "spent" (and perhaps given as ammo to the GM).

            > in the GMs Fate Pool. (Unformed idea: You could add extra effects, like if
            > the die is a 1-2, the aspect is affected in some way.)

            I had been monkeying with additional affects on rolls of 1 and 6, but those are even more poorly formed than the rest of this.

            > The GM can use Fate Dice, adding to her rolls in the same way. The GM
            > should declare the circumstance it represents (which could be an invocation
            > of the player's aspect against him). If the Fate Die is used (replacing one
            > of the GMs two dice), it gets handed to the player who was most affected by
            > that roll (or put in a communal player for players to draw on).
            >

            The substitution-only method makes sense for that first 2d6+mod thing; it allows for a bit of an aspect-related nudge once in a while while keeping the range fairly normalized (which might seem sensible or limiting, depending on the play style). Keeps TNs tamer, and comparative/conflict rolls from getting completely ludicrous.

            But it doesn't encourage dropping a fistful of dice when you're being badass. Hmm.

          • Hollis McCray
            This sounds similar to style dice in PDQ#. Have you looked at that for inspiration? -- Hollis McCray aka The Fifth Wanderer ascensionschild@gmail.com GMing is
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 18, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              This sounds similar to style dice in PDQ#. Have you looked at that for inspiration?

              --
              Hollis McCray
              aka The Fifth Wanderer

              ascensionschild@...

              "GMing is like herding cats. Wet, angry cats who are pumped full of LSD and methamphetamines." - Stolen from some forum sig somewhere
            • freelancepope
              I just realized a point where I was being unclear. I was using L5R/Seventh Sea terminology, saying kept and unkept when I meant what was being kept & read
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 18, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I just realized a point where I was being unclear. I was using L5R/Seventh Sea terminology, saying "kept" and "unkept" when I meant what was being kept & read from the roll versus what was rolled and dropped.

                So, initially you'd roll and read two dice. Each Fate Die spent is added to the roll, but not to the number of dice being read. Each relevant aspect allows an additional die to be read. Every Fate Die used goes away.

                A bit more clear and succinct?

                -Jesse Q

                --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Darren Hill <darren0hill@...> wrote:
                >
                > On 1 April 2012 06:37, freelancepope <jesseq@...> wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > It's not quite what I was intending for it to be, but it seem pretty
                > > nifty. I was thumping together a simple 2d6+mod system, and wanted to
                > > fatten up the characters a bit with some aspect-like traits, and what I
                > > ended up with might be a reasonably standalone or pluginnable method for
                > > using aspects.
                > >
                > > I don't recall having seen something like this on the list before, but
                > > please forgive me if I've missed something. Also, it's not strictly Fate,
                > > though it's built entirely on aspects.
                > >
                > > Players begin each session with their own pool of Fate Dice (d6s, distinct
                > > from the basic 2d6 used for making the ability checks). You may add the
                > > Fate Dice to any roll, in any desired amount. These are bonus or unkept
                > > dice (rolled along with the other dice, but you must drop an equal number
                > > of dice before totaling). For each relevant aspect, an unkpet die may
                > > become a kept die. After rolling the dice, any Fate dice rolled go back to
                > > the GM.
                > >
                > > Other uses of Fate Dice should be intuitive to most Fate players.
                > >
                > > Even though it's not entirely key to the functionality, I like the tactile
                > > element of it because when you're doing something more suave, you get to
                > > roll more dice. It also clarifies a bit of the FP economy (instead of
                > > saying you can only invoke an aspect once per action, each relevant aspect
                > > alters a single die).
                > >
                > > Though it wasn't intended to be a "skill-less" system (in, fact was meant
                > > to go along with a traditional attribute+skill mechanic), I could see this
                > > lending itself to something like that; perhaps needing to increase the
                > > number of aspects per character to account for skills, and maybe allowing
                > > aspect ranking ("this aspect changes two unkept dice into kept, instead of
                > > just one").
                > >
                > > I've got a few other ideas regarding this, including handling of temporary
                > > aspects, success steps based on excess dice, and open-ended rolls, but
                > > (this just having occurred to me) they aren't very complete. I also used a
                > > slightly different bit of terminology in my notes (including the
                > > super-catchy "pool of extra dice") since I didn't quite realize how much
                > > Fate was getting into it.
                > >
                > > It would be easy enough to scale the importance of aspects & fate dice
                > > against another task resolution system, by adjusting the availability of
                > > fate dice and aspects to balance. As a complement to a full skill system
                > > (as I was initially intending), having fewer aspects and fate dice.
                > >
                > > Thoughts?
                > >
                > > Jesse Q
                > >
                >
                > It looks intriguing, but I'm a bit unclear about some of the details.
                > How many dice do people have in their pool?
                > Is there a cost to declaring an aspect as one of the dice? If not, I would
                > expect players to routinely roll 2-3 or more dice from the pool, and keep
                > them all. Depending on how many aspects players have, it's not hard to
                > quite reasonably declare a bunch of them relevant to any given roll a
                > player cares for, without accusations of mini-maxing (for those who care
                > about such things).
                >
                > Here's how I might alter it, off the top of my head (for a purer Fate feel,
                > which may not be what you are going for). You have a pool of dice. Each
                > time you add one to a roll, you make a declaration of why an aspect applies
                > (just like a normal invocation), then roll the die. If the die is used to
                > replace one of the basic two dice, it is handed over to the GM and placed
                > in the GMs Fate Pool. (Unformed idea: You could add extra effects, like if
                > the die is a 1-2, the aspect is affected in some way.)
                >
                > The GM can use Fate Dice, adding to her rolls in the same way. The GM
                > should declare the circumstance it represents (which could be an invocation
                > of the player's aspect against him). If the Fate Die is used (replacing one
                > of the GMs two dice), it gets handed to the player who was most affected by
                > that roll (or put in a communal player for players to draw on).
                >
              • freelancepope
                Huh. Oh, not consciously - it didn t occur to me at all. Maybe it s time I took another look at it. -Jesse Q
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 18, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Huh. Oh, not consciously - it didn't occur to me at all. Maybe it's time I took another look at it.

                  -Jesse Q

                  --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Hollis McCray <ascensionschild@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > This sounds similar to style dice in PDQ#. Have you looked at that for
                  > inspiration?
                  >
                  > --
                  > Hollis McCray
                  > aka The Fifth Wanderer
                  >
                  > ascensionschild@...
                  >
                  > "GMing is like herding cats. Wet, angry cats who are pumped full of LSD and
                  > methamphetamines." - Stolen from some forum sig somewhere
                  >
                • freelancepope
                  Thanks, that s pretty much what I m going for. If you re rolling for something your character is good at: that s what you can *do*, you get a decent modifier.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 19, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks, that's pretty much what I'm going for.

                    If you're rolling for something your character is good at: that's what you can *do*, you get a decent modifier. When the situation makes it so that some aspects matter, that's what you're *about* - roll some freakin' dice!

                    -Jesse Q

                    --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Whalen <jeremy.whalen@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > "...encourage dropping a fistful of dice when you're being badass..."
                    >
                    > That is the best mechanic description I have seen in a while!
                    >
                    > There is no better way to let your players strut their stuff then by giving
                    > them the opportunity to pick up a fist full of dice with which to dork your
                    > goons. It is tactile, makes a terrific noise hitting the table and gives
                    > the player the COOL factor of unleashing hell.
                    >
                    > I fully endorse this mechanic.
                    >
                    > Best Regards,
                    > Jeremy
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:05 AM, freelancepope <jesseq@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Darren Hill <darren0hill@> wrote:
                    > >
                    >
                    > > It looks intriguing, but I'm a bit unclear about some of the details.
                    >
                    > So am I!
                    >
                    > > How many dice do people have in their pool?
                    >
                    > Assuming the simple 2d6+mod thing I was initially shoehorning this into,
                    > you'd probably start each session with a very small pool (perhaps 2 to 5?),
                    > as one die would be fairly mighty. If the weight of the aspects is seen as
                    > more significant (as I was suggesting that it might lend itself to an
                    > aspects-only rig), perhaps the standard 10(ish), and a broader range of TNs.
                    >
                    > > Is there a cost to declaring an aspect as one of the dice? If not, I would
                    > > expect players to routinely roll 2-3 or more dice from the pool, and keep
                    > > them all. Depending on how many aspects players have, it's not hard to
                    > > quite reasonably declare a bunch of them relevant to any given roll a
                    > > player cares for, without accusations of mini-maxing (for those who care
                    > > about such things).
                    >
                    > The dice from the pool are expended (and perhaps given to the GM to
                    > leverage back against the PCs) - the dice themselves are the Fate Points.
                    > This whole thing started as a way to make this sort of thing more tactile -
                    > it's fun to roll more dice when you're being awesome - instead of just
                    > spending the points and getting a flat modifier.
                    >
                    > But, yeah, it is easy to see an absurd roll resulting from a confluence of
                    > relevant aspects. It's a matter of figuring out a balance of the economy -
                    > in standard Fate, you *could* get +10 to a roll by going all-in.
                    >
                    > > Here's how I might alter it, off the top of my head (for a purer Fate
                    > feel,
                    > > which may not be what you are going for). You have a pool of dice. Each
                    > > time you add one to a roll, you make a declaration of why an aspect
                    > applies
                    > > (just like a normal invocation), then roll the die. If the die is used to
                    > > replace one of the basic two dice, it is handed over to the GM and placed
                    >
                    > I'd pretty much intended that *any* use of the Fate Die would be "spent"
                    > (and perhaps given as ammo to the GM).
                    >
                    > > in the GMs Fate Pool. (Unformed idea: You could add extra effects, like if
                    > > the die is a 1-2, the aspect is affected in some way.)
                    >
                    > I had been monkeying with additional affects on rolls of 1 and 6, but those
                    > are even more poorly formed than the rest of this.
                    >
                    > > The GM can use Fate Dice, adding to her rolls in the same way. The GM
                    > > should declare the circumstance it represents (which could be an
                    > invocation
                    > > of the player's aspect against him). If the Fate Die is used (replacing
                    > one
                    > > of the GMs two dice), it gets handed to the player who was most affected
                    > by
                    > > that roll (or put in a communal player for players to draw on).
                    > >
                    >
                    > The substitution-only method makes sense for that first 2d6+mod thing; it
                    > allows for a bit of an aspect-related nudge once in a while while keeping
                    > the range fairly normalized (which might seem sensible or limiting,
                    > depending on the play style). Keeps TNs tamer, and comparative/conflict
                    > rolls from getting completely ludicrous.
                    >
                    > But it doesn't encourage dropping a fistful of dice when you're being
                    > badass. Hmm.
                    >
                  • Jon Lang
                    You might also want to look at the Cortex system from Margaret Weis Productions: in particular, the Smallville RPG comes remarkably close to being Fate with a
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 19, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You might also want to look at the Cortex system from Margaret Weis Productions: in particular, the Smallville RPG comes remarkably close to being "Fate with a Bucket of Dice", complete with Aspect-like character traits and Plot Points that are earned through dramatic complications and spent to achieve dramatic success.  It goes beyond what you're proposing in that it doesn't just vary the number of dice used; it also varies the type of dice: traits are rated on a scale of d4 to d12. 

                      --
                      Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
                    • freelancepope
                      ...aaaand going back through some stuff, it seems that this whole thing has pretty much already been covered by Wheel Of Fate. -Jesse Q
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 20, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ...aaaand going back through some stuff, it seems that this whole thing has pretty much already been covered by Wheel Of Fate.

                        -Jesse Q


                        --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "freelancepope" <jesseq@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Huh. Oh, not consciously - it didn't occur to me at all. Maybe it's time I took another look at it.
                        >
                        > -Jesse Q
                        >
                        > --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Hollis McCray <ascensionschild@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > This sounds similar to style dice in PDQ#. Have you looked at that for
                        > > inspiration?
                        > >
                        > > --
                        > > Hollis McCray
                        > > aka The Fifth Wanderer
                        > >
                        > > ascensionschild@
                        > >
                        > > "GMing is like herding cats. Wet, angry cats who are pumped full of LSD and
                        > > methamphetamines." - Stolen from some forum sig somewhere
                        > >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.