D6 Dice Resolution | House Rules

Please help support the channel, here's our Patreon:

The Movie Trilogy Sourcebook (Star Wars, West End Games, 1993) | Retro RPG

Vampire: The Masquerade (White Wolf Publishing, 1992) | Rules Breakdown

Description: Digging a little more into my chosen dice resolution mechanic, D6 dicepool based.

#rpg #houserules

[rentless]

A system I personally love is the TinyD6. Basically you succeed if you roll a 5 or 6. You roll 2 dice... If you have skills or any kind of advantage you roll 3 dice, if you have any disadvantage, you only roll 1 die. Its very simple, but works great.

[kylegraywolf]

I found this video and comments helpful. I've been building out a rules light system based on a d6 dice pool. I didn't realize so many games used them, and now I've got some other games to look into to better understand various mechanics.

[midc]

A target number of 7 is useful when modifiers move the target number up and down. A 7 target number modified by a -2 is still a 5 while a 6 is modified to 4

[michaelotero]

I recently backed The D6 System 2e Kickstarter because I was fond of the 90s one and the WEG Star Wars.

It put me on a D6 dice pool system rabbit trail.

You might like Mythic D6, which is the successor of D6 Legends. It’s the D6 system, but you count successes instead of adding up the dice.

I can second the TinyD6 system as a great minimalist d6 pool game.

I discovered a few others that might interest you: EZ D6, Tricube Tales, Mini Six, and Far Away Land. I really like these games - especially FAL. Don’t let the Adventure Time-esque aesthetics fool you; there’s a great game there!

[godsmonkey]

I've been trying to work up a streamlined version of Shadowrun. I too came up with the idea of a 6=2 successes. I do not count ones as failures however. My desire is to keep the math as simple as possible. My group is mostly casual gamers, so the lighter the rules the better.

But I love the idea of 6=2

[betterthancomputers]

maybe consider a less harsh resolution of 5 and 6 success? A 6 allows an extra dice roll aka "exploding dice" to try and get a chance at more successes. 1's instead of cancelling a success, just add a complication; lock pick breaks, weapon malfunction/dropped, opens door but a hidden alarm sounds, unexpected reinforcements arrive.

[Nezzeraj]

I'm a huge fan of dice pool systems. Burning Wheel uses the best dice resolution mechanics. You roll d6s equal to your skill, against a variable target number. 4-6 count as successes, and 1-3 as failures. There are also metacurrencies that add dice to your pools and teammates can help by adding dice too.

[allluckyseven]

It's kind of unfortunate that people (I believe, no actual data to back this claim) want to see high numbers on dice, otherwise you could invert that and count 1s as 1, 2s as 2, and 6s as -1.
But either way, I think you should check the probabilities, and see how hard it would be for a weak, average and expert characters to beat a certain difficulty. And the probabilities of botching.
Also, how long would it take to count successes and discount 1s from those successes, and how long would be too long for you.

[timhayes]

I like the idea of a 6 giving two successes as it would broaden the possibility range of a pc succeeding, eg if I have 4 dice I might still try for a task needing 5 successes if I was desperate. I wonder whether it will make working out difficulty levels / target numbers more challenging.

[BrandonPaul]

The way ones subtract in old world of darkness definitely goes on my list of "worst tabletop mechanics of all time". When it comes to 1s in world of darkness, botching when you fail with 1s is bad enough (and it happens much less often, which is good). It's one of the main reasons I can't play using the old rules anymore. Then again, they don't balance it out with 6s or something like that counting as two. For world of darkness they only added that for exalted (and twos didn't subtract, only counted for botches)

[bcx]

Looking at the odds of this on anydice. It looks really nice.

[mikegiamalva]

Interesting talk, but I think your idea is too complicated for me.