I wanted it to be quick resolution. It just takes players longer to read and add 1d10 to 5d10 than d6. That's why we don't see many 3d20 mechanics and the like, but lots of "roll one die, and -" mechanics. The "quick resolution" also reinforces the "gambling" feel of things.

To my mind, it's a compromise. As GM, I want quick resolution, while players like rolling lots of dice, and having the choice about how many they roll.

The quick resolution requirement means we can't have game mechanics like "Attribute and Skills 1-10 each, multiply one by the other, roll under on percentile dice", and the "lots of dice plus choice" gives us game mechanics like Risk Dice.

Edit: oh, and I didn't want to have different ranges and dice for attributes/skills than for task resolution. I've always hated that, when attributes and skills are on a different scale.

Good idea!

The thing you mention, skills and attributes having different values (like: IQ-10 is very bright but cooking-17 is just mediocre) is really a pain in the ass.

Have you thought of reducing the amount of risk a bit by using different dice? For example: start with a D10 down to a D4, for example:
D10
D10 (twice)
D8
D6
D4
You start using the D10s and pick up lower dive as you increase the potential success.
The average is about 21, for 5 successes.

Just a thought.

I would consider removing the critical failure of rolling all 6s and changing it to adding another die for each 6 rolled.  For example a player rolls two 6s on 4d6.  2d6 are added to the pool.  This increases the chance of failure, but also increases the chance of an amazing success.  

I might consider giving the player the option of rolling an extra die for each 1 rolled as well (player's choice on how many 1s will be converted to extra dice).  This increases the chance of a good success even on low initial dice.  It also increases the chance of failure.  I know this adds to the time it takes to resolve, but I think it might be worthwhile in this system.

There would, of course, be no rolls beyond the second rolls (if any).

A couple of examples...

Att+Skill=15
2d6 in current system is a guaranteed success.  

In this version, if the player rolled two 6s, the player would automatically add 2d6 to the roll.  If, the player somehow gets lucky and rolls two 1s on that followup roll...  he would get 4 successes.  Otherwise, he fails.

Same situation, but the player rolls a 6 and a 1.  The player must automatically roll 1d6, but because of the 1, the player can choose to roll another d6 for a total of 2d6.  Up to the player.  With this situation, the player will get a free success.  Kind of odd that a 6 ends up being a free success here, but that's how the dice roll sometimes.  If the player opts to roll 2d6, he might end up with 4 success, or he might simply fail.

Same situation, but the player rolls 2 1s.  The player may choose to roll up to 2d6 extra.  In this case, it's a no-brainer.  2d6 would still keep the player under the target and would net the player 4 successes.

--sam

Dude.  Kyle.  I really like this.

Glad you like it. It's written up in a whole system now.

Okay: I've skipped everything past the in game newspaper article so I hope I didn't miss anything relevant.

First: I rather like it and could see how something similar could be used for the dynamic Fu system I was wonking about with around here over the last year+   This requires some thinking on my part.

Second: one option that came to my mind was using the successes/failures aspect a bit more.

Lets say you rolled your five dice. Obviously the GM can determine that 5 points of damage or instant lock picking for some instances, but in other cases the player might have the ability to determine just what their successes mean.  Might slow things down too much, and requires thoughts as to options that could be influenced. Maybe the player choses only to use four points to speed pick the lock and uses the 5th for a panache bonus to impress the girl he's with?

Then of course, combat. opposed checks, where the defender can chose to stick with his tried and two '2 successes' to negate two points of damage, or could roll to see if he can offset extra (best for melee/dueling, though one can assume it would apply to dodging shooters too if one liked) at the penality of risking having no defense at all.

The last possible 'fluidity' iteration was scaling the degree of failure/non-success based on how badly they wiffed it. Either something like a fixed total over (every 3 points missed is one negative) or by 'stacking the dice' in some sort of pre-arranged order (smallest to largest, largest to smallest) and seeing how many were 'over the top'... neat but impractical.  This could be used alternatively as a success negator or as actual negative successes depending.

Just tossing thoughts around.  I think I'll look at my Fu ideas again with this sort of mechanic in mind just to see what pops.

What I've been doing recently is before they roll the dice, asking them to assign the dice.

I draw up a sort of U-shape. Can't do tables in these forum posts, so it's hard to show...

At the base of the U is a box to put 1d6 in. That's compulsory - "doing the job slowly and mediocre." Then up one side are three more boxes to put d6es in, "doing the job quickly, very quickly, and impressively fast." Then up the other side are three boxes to put d6es in, "doing the job well, very well, and impressively well." So at the beginning the player decides whether they're taking a risk to do things quicker or better.

I've been working on a similar concept (risk dice) for some time, and it's cool to see what some of the issues and benefits will be.

In mine, you don't add dice together, you just try not to roll a 10 (or a 9-10, I haven't decided). You have a rank in any given ability, and whatever you're trying to do will have a target number. You subtract your rank from the target number and roll the remaining number of dice. If you don't have to roll, you automatically succeed.

For example, if you have "Fighting 8", and your opponent's defenses are 10, you'd have to roll at least 2 dice to hit him for minimal effect. Extra dice will allow special moves or more effective damage.

I'm thinking that I'll avoid any sort of hit point system, instead a "Mortal Wound" might be +10 or +15 to the target's defenses before you subtract your rank to determine how many dice you have to risk. If you succeed, you take out the foe in one hit. If you miss, you take a penalty to defense equal to your risk.

Unless you're a lot better than a foe, you'd do best to try to whittle him down. However, the effect of this mechanic is that the game self-populates with mooks as the PCs get better. The "elite" soldier that gave you so much trouble at the beginning of your career may eventually be a one shot mook.

I'm still at the very embryonic stages, but after seeing this thread, I'm optimistic.