Big one today – I am sharing the dice rolling system that I am strongly considering using as an alternative to the classic Beat the Odds roll. This is definitely playtest material and I would love to hear your feedback.
Why a new mechanism?
Before we get into the nitty-gritty, let me just give some background for why I am exploring alternative options for action resolution in FU.
The primary reason is the classic beat the odds roll is only really satisfying with a very small number of bonus or penalty dice in play (or a roughly equal number so they cancel each other out). Once you roll more than a few dice, the results become very predictable. This is not a bad thing, and served me well for a very long time, however it makes the rolls either very predictable (because you are rolling so many bonus or penalty dice), or very “swingy”. The steep influence of bonus/penalty dice on probability has been flagged as a big issue for many players and there have been more variations of the FU die mechanic than any other type of hack! It is obviously a concern worth addressing.
This limitation of predictable odds also affects other aspects of the game design, including advancement. Improvement (as we’ve come to expect it in RPG’s) results in a character accumulating more descriptors, gear and abilities which in turn means the player rolls more bonus dice. This will very quickly tip the balance in favour of player success. While I’m all in favour of having competent characters, this needs to come with enough threat in the mechanics to make dice rolls exciting.
The second reason I am exploring an alternative is to make the core mechanic quicker and more intuitive, particularly in terms of the creation of the dice pool. Currently you do a lot of math before a beat the odds roll – you “add up” all the bonus and penalty modifiers, find the difference and apply that to the base die you roll. While not “heavy lifting”, and certainly no different to adding and subtracting a variety of modifiers in games like DnD, it is something I feel can be smoothed. Furthermore, the current system requires the narrator to have a clear justification for each penalty (or bonus) they throw at the character which can sometimes be taxing – especially when you “just know” the action is hard.
The next reason I am exploring alternative resolution mechanics is out of a desire for more flexibility in what can be done with the dice rolls. FU can be used in a huge variety of settings and genres and some of these conceivably have different needs from the die roll. In particular, I am thinking about conflict resolution (and combat specifically) and how different players or groups prefer to handle it. I don’t want to add a variety of different rolls to the game – I love the clean elegance of the current system, but I also love how other games use the dice roll to provide a variety of information beyond just success and failure.
Finally, selfishly, I like dice pools. I love the rattle of a handful of dice and the satisfying sound they make as they splash across the table. I also love the “gamey” aspect of picking through the pool to find the dice that I’ll use to resolve my action. I think that the moment where all the dice are spread out before you, and you are searching for the numbers you need, increases the tension. I know that some players really prefer the dice rolls to disappear in play so they can focus on story, but there is room for both.
The FU Dice Pool
First, let me point out that Yes / No / And / But remain at the heart of FU. There is no change to this integral concept of the game. What I am looking at is modifying the way we determine what result is achieved.
At it’s core, this resolution mechanic is opposed dice pools. One pool represents all the elements working in the character’s favour, while the other pool represents all the things working against them. However, dice are still only rolled by the player.
Different dice
You will need to tell the dice in different pools apart. Either use dice of different colours, or different sizes.
In all the examples below I use white dice to represent the “positive” pool and black dice to represent the “negative” pool.
1 – Assemble your pool
When a character attempts to do something where the outcome is questionable or potentially dangerous, we go to a die roll. The player and game master discuss the action and identify the potential advantages and disadvantages present in the situation.
A character’s die pool begins with two dice, one positive [+] and one negative [-].
For every advantageous trademark, tag, or environmental condition that will improve the character’s chance of success, add one positive [+] die.
For every threat, obstacle or disadvantage that makes the action more difficult, add one negative [-] die to the pool.
Common modifiers might include:
- The character’s trademarks / meta-tags [+] or [-]
- The opposition’s tags [+] or [-]
- Environmental tags [+] or [-]
- Assistance from an ally [+]
- Not having the right gear [-]
- Under time pressure [-]
FU Points: a player may spend FU points to add more positive dice to the pool. One FU point adds one [+].
This forms the base die pool.
Example – Sir Galvin and the troll
Dave’s character, Sir Galvin, is out questing in the forest. He comes to an overgrown old bridge and is halfway across when a troll crawls from beneath and demands to eat his horse.
“Outrageous!” Dave cries. “Sir Galvin would never give up his noble steed. In fact, he wouldn’t put up with such a monster in the King’s forest. I draw my sword and charge straight at him.”
This is obviously a conflict and it will be resolved with the roll of dice. Dave and the GM discuss the situation and decide that the question to be answered by Sir Galvin and the dice roll is “Do I charge the troll to the ground without injuring myself or my horse?”
Dave grabs [+] and [-] as the base of his pool. He points out that he has the trademark Daring Knight [+] and the unlocked meta-tag Batter down my enemies [+]. The GM tells Dave the troll is huge [-] and strong [-]. The GM also agrees that charging the troll on horseback give Sir Galvin another advantage [+].
Dave’s dice pool consists of seven dice – 4 positive (white) dice and 3 negative (black) dice.
2 – Roll and match dice
When you have gathered your die pool, roll the dice.
Pair-up positive and negative dice that rolled the same number. Discard all such matches.
For example, if a die roll was: Positive 2, 3, 5 and Negative 1, 3, 3 you would pair-up a positive 3 and a negative 3. The remaining pool would be Positive 2, 5 and Negative 1, 3.
Discarded pairs will play no further part in resolving the action.
The remaining dice will be used to determine whether the action succeeds or fails.
FU Points: at this point a player may pend a FU point to re-roll a positive die. Only positive dice may me re-rolled, and only those that remain in play (if they were matched and discarded they cannot be re-rolled). A player may spend as many FU points to reroll as many [+] dice as they wish, but each die may only be rerolled once.
Example – Sir Galvin and the troll (cont.)
Dave rolls his dice, scoring [+] 1, 3, 5, 6 and [-] 3, 4, 6.
That means a pair of 3’s and a pair of 6’s are matched and discarded.
Dave is left with [+] 1, 5 and [-] 4.
3 – Effect and qualifier dice
The highest remaining die is the effect die. This will tell you whether the action succeeded or failed.
If the effect die is [+], the result is YES. If the effect die is [-], the result is NO.
Now find the next highest die. This is the qualifier and tells you how complete your success or failure was.
If the qualifier die is the same type as the effect die, it is AND. If the qualifier die is a different type, it is BUT.
For example, if both the effect and qualifier are [+], the result would be YES AND. If the effect die is [-] and the qualifier is [+] the result would be NO BUT.
Only one die: If there is only one die left in the pool after matches are discarded, the result can only be YES or NO (depending on whether the die is [+] or [-] ).
No dice: If no dice remain in the pool, the situation is not resolved, but either escalates or is interrupted by a new encounter / threat / situation.
Example – Sir Galvin and the troll (cont.)
Discarding pairs of matching positive and negative dice, Dave is left with [+] 1, 5 and [-] 4.
The highest die (5) is positive so the effect is YES. The next highest die (4) is negative, making the qualifier BUT.
In response to the question “Do I charge down the troll without injuring myself or my horse?” the answer is “Yes, but…”
The GM and Dave have a brief conversation and decide that Sir Galvin does indeed charge down the troll, knocking it to the ground, but the creature’s flailing arms also knock the knight from his steed. Sir Galvin rolls deftly back to his feet and approaches the prone troll…
The system in a nutshell
That was a rather long-winded explanation of what is actually pretty intuitive and not that different from the current system. As a quick recap, here is the system in one quick chart:
- Establish situation, stakes and the question to be answered.
- Assemble dice pool
- Start with [+] and [-]
- Add further [+] and [-] as the situation dictates
- Player may spend FU points to add [+]
- Roll
- Pair [+] and [-] with matching values and discard them
- If this discards all dice, the situation escalates / changes without being resolved
- Player may spend FU points to reroll any remaining [+]
- Highest remaining die is the effect die
- If effect die is [+], the result is YES
- If the effect die is [-], the result is NO
- Next highest die is the qualifier die
- If it is same die type as effect die ( [+] or [-] ), the qualifier is AND
- If it is a different die type as effect die ( [+] or [-] ), the qualifier is BUT
- If there is no second die, there is no qualifier – the answer is just YES or NO
Similarities and differences to the classic beat the odds roll
Here are a few quick observations, comparing this system to the classic die mechanic.
First, I have found assembling the pool is quicker. You just pick up the [+] or [-] dice as you talk through the scene. There is no “cancelling out” prior to the roll, so it speeds things up and gets us to the interesting bit – reading the result.
Like the classic system, only players roll dice. This gets around some of the FU hacks that opt for a more traditional opposed die pool.
We are no longer using the actual number rolled to determine the effect (beyond comparing to other dice). This opens up possibilities for using the rolled value of effect and qualifier dice for other purposes.
On a base-line roll (with no extra bonus or penalty dice) the only results possible are “Yes, but…”, “No, but…” or an escalation. Some people will see this as a flaw in the system, but I like how it draws results to the centre. Without any extenuating circumstances, you will not achieve an amazing success or horrifying failure.
Straight “Yes” and “No” results are less common than other results. I like this as the qualifiers of “and” and “but” are really where the interesting moments of the story sit.
The impact of bonus and penalty dice are sharply reduced from the classic roll. (I will admit I am struggling with the maths here, particularly because of the chance to (a) cancel all dice and (b) the need to compare the opposed pools to each other twice. If someone is a whiz with AnyDice or other probability programs, please feel free to calculate the odds!)
Now, another example…
Example – Tennessee Smith dodges death!
Our old friend Tennessee Smith has been exploring an ancient Egyptian temple when he picks up an artefact and accidentally sets off a trap. The GM describes to Vicki, who is playing Tennessee, how the door to the chamber begins to grind closed, while at the same time the floor is sliding away to reveal a pit filled with undead crocodiles. Those ancient Egyptians sure know how to build a trap!
“Oh blast!” Vicki exclaims. “I need to get out of here with the Idol of Nefertiti, so that’s going to present a problem. I’ll tuck the idol under my arm, use my whip to swing across the pit before it opens too wide, and then roll under the closing door.”
“Okay,” Ben, the GM says. “That’s a lot of actions. Are you happy to resolve the entire scene as a single roll like this? Or would you prefer to break it down into seperate challenges – leap the pit, then try and get under the door?”
“I’m okay with doing it as a single action.” Vicki says. “I see it kind of as a single dramatic moment, anyway. Tennessee swings across the pit, tumbles onto the other side and then slides under the door like a baseball player sliding into home.”
“No problem, but it will mean a big die pool.” Ben pulls a face as he thinks about all the factors involved. “So what are the stakes? Obviously, success is you get out unscathed. What’s the risk – besides being trapped in an ancient tomb with undead crocodiles?”
“Well, the museum wants the idol for display,” Vicki says, “So it probably won’t be good if it’s damaged. What if the risk is the Idol of Nefertiti is damaged in some way?”
“Sounds good.” Ben says.
“So the question I’m asking is: Can I leap the pit and slide under the door without damaging the idol?”
Vicki then begins to assemble her dice pool. She starts with the basic [+] and [-], adding [+] for Smith’s Daredevil Adventurer trademark and another [+] for his Trusty Bullwhip equipment. Ben points out this is a tough challenge, as our hero must swing across the pit [-] while avoiding the snapping jaws of the undead crocodiles [-], do it quick enough to get to the door before it closes [-], and with a precious artefact tucked under one arm [-]. That is three positive and five negative dice in the pool!
“Ahh, those are pretty steep odds,” Vicki says. “I’m going to throw my last two FU points into this, too, for two more bonus dice.” The final dice pool is 10 dice – five positive and five negative.
Vicki rolls the dice, getting [+] 1, 2, 5, 5, 6 and [-] 2, 4, 5, 6, 6.
That’s a lot of fives and sixes! The next step is to pair-up any positive and negative dice with the same value, and discard them. That means a pair of 6’s, 5’s and 2’s are removed:
Only four dice remain, and it is not looking great for Tennessee Smith:
Looking at the two highest remaining dice, we have a negative 6 and positive 5.
That’s a No, but… result.
Vicki repeats her question; “Can I leap the pit and slide under the door without damaging the idol?”
“No,” Ben says. “You swing across the pit with ease, but when you land on the other side there is an unpleasant ‘clink’ as the idol connects with the stone floor. You slide across the dusty floor and under the door just as it closes. The idol is damaged, but it is not irreparable – you may have to track down your old friend Doctor Clagg to have it repaired.”
*Note, while Ben gives quite a long response, the actual answer is the part in bold. It clearly responds to the question and incorporates both the effect and qualifier. If the action had been less elaborate, the response would likely have been shorter.
Possibilities present themselves
I said way back at the start of this article that I want an action resolution system that is flexible enough to meet the needs of a range of situations, genres or play styles. Here are some possibilities that become available with the system presented above.
Polyhedral chaos!
As we are comparing highest rolls between two pools, rather than against a set target number, you could actually use any type of dice. If you have a love for d4’s, or a stack of d10’s left over from playing Vampire: the Masquerade, you could use them. The odds do change based on the number of sides your dice have, but it is a possibility.
A more interesting possibility, however, is the potential to throw a larger polyhedral into the pool to represent a super power, astounding training or a particularly terrible menace. They could also represent differences in scale. A man might be “strong”, but an elephant is strong on a different scale. When superheroes fight each other they might all roll d6, but when a super-powered being punches a mere-mortal they might get a bigger die thrown in for good measure. Likewise when dodging a blast from the laser cannons designed to destroy starships, or when your plucky thief stabs a dragon with a dagger. Such an alteration to the die system, however, would need to see both pools affected, otherwise things might become too one-sided quickly. In the tests I have done (don’t you sit by yourself rolling dice for hours?) a single d8 or d10 to a pool doesn’t have a massive impact.
More information please
It is now possible to get a “Yes, and” result with a double one, or a “No, but…” with a two and three. As the rolled number has been unhooked from the resolution chart we can actually use the numbers to expand the information a roll delivers.
The first idea that springs to mind is “damage”. Imagine, when a character attacks an opponent, the value of the effect die becomes the damage suffered by the “loser” of the attack. In fact, you could use both the effect and qualifier die to allocate damage to either or both parties:
I swing my sword at the goblin! Do I hit him without exposing myself to his rusty dagger?
Yes, you land a solid blow on the creature dealing 5 points of damage, but he slips his dagger into your side and you suffer 4 points of damage.
*Note! The answer doesn’t actually fit the question, as a “yes” result should mean the character is not stabbed by the goblin. Perhaps the question should have just been “Do I hit the goblin?”
Now, this is not necessarily where I’m heading with the combat system (unless that’s what you want – tell me!). However, if you want a combat system that mimics more traditional RPG’s, that’s pretty solid. You can then throw in some modifiers for light/medium/heavy weapons and armour and you have a full-blown combat hack.
You can use the same concept for healing, magical backlash when casting spells, or even indicating how long an action takes – in this case, rolling a low number might actually be better!
You could also look at whether either or both result dice have odd or even values. Depending on how deep you want to mine information, even or odd numbers could mean different things depending on whether they appear on positive [+] or negative [-] dice. I’m not sure what information you might pull, but the possibility remains.
Instant challenges
I can see predefined encounters, traps or adversaries with an attached “difficulty” in the form of pre-set penalty dice. The ogre your knight fights is Threat 2, so you add [-][-] to the die pool. It potentially takes away some of the story-driven element of the game by replacing a list of tags with a number, but as a a shorthand to define specific situations and circumstances, though, it could be a useful option.
Rewards and special effects
I particularly like the idea of rewarding some boon or bonus if a player rolls a double 6 to get a result (that would be a “Yes, and…” or a “No, and…”). Perhaps the player earns an XP or FU point in such a situation. You could extend it to any “and…” result achieved with a double.
You might also somehow take into account the number of dice with the same value. If, for example, you rolled [+] 5, 5, 5, 5 [-] 2, 3 there might be some bonus for having multiple 5’s. This could be similar to the extra “and” responses, allowing the character to have a “Yes, and, and, and, and…” result.
That brings me to the end of a very long article! There is a lot here to think about, and I prepare to press “publish” with some amount of nerves. The mechanical elements of a game system can be controversial at times. Some people like the dice rolls to just get out of the way, while others love the “game within a game” that some systems provide. I hope that the system presented above provides a happy middle ground, but I would love your feedback.
Im a huge fan of FU, cant help but recommend it on reddit whenever i get the chance
this is a very interesting change to the core mechanic, and i think it will eliminate the core problem of FU of too many dice = very swing results, especially with the recent additions of the traits/tags (brilliant by the way)
2 small things
1. in your summery above you have listed your qualifiers as yes/no rather and and/but easy miss on a LONG article
2. when re-rolling possitive dice, what is the effect of then creating a double, for example if i have a 126 white and 45 black if i reroll my white 1 and get a white 5, do they cancel out? or do i now have 2 5’s of two colours
meaning when i pick my 2nd highest die to represent the qualifier i would have both to chose from
currently working on a game of thrones hack of FU, this new dice system will be very interesting addition
Thanks McDie! I just noticed the Yes/No typo myself (and have fixed it). Oops!
In the case of the re-roll, if it creates another match you would then discard them. You don’t want a situation where both positive and negative are “highest”. Doing this, though makes re-rolling a more challenging decision, as in some situations rolling a match might not improve the situation.
In the example spread of rolls you give, if I re-roll the 1 and get a 5, both dice are discarded and the situation hasn’t improved (because I now have to use the 4). In fact, only another 6 would improve the situation.
To be honest, a re-roll may not be powerful enough. Or it might be, if other factors are influencing the roll – for example, if the dice also determine damage, then cancelling out the five will potentially reduce the damage the character might suffer. Does that make sense? (I’m just thinking out loud at this point…)
perfect sense 🙂
and yes it does add some risk and as you explained possible reward too if using the damage
I feel that while this is an interesting idea, perhaps it robs the system of its greatest asset: Elegance and simplicity.
It’s by no means a complex dice system, sure, but I feel like it makes understanding the probabilities associated with rolls and their modifiers a tad harder to understand.
Perhaps one way of limiting the “too many dice” problem is setting a limit on the amount of things that can be helpful/harmful for any given situation (one Descriptor, one piece of Gear, one Condition…).
Cheers for the feedback Elias! I totally agree that the probabilities are harder to understand (it’s something I’ve been struggling with myself).
I have toyed with the limitation on types of bonus and penalty dice, in exactly the way you describe and that certainly is a possibility.
First, Nathan, your blog is fascinating, your thinking elegant and transparent. Thank you for letting us into your world!
For this particular idea, I think it makes the mechanic a hair harder. It is easier to roll 2 die than it is to find pairs and discard – that takes just a bit more time. So I agree with McDie. The ability to count matches is cool, but there would be easier ways to implement that.
I like it. I planned on using the Equinox / Earthdawn system of Fate dice, so this is another potential solution to the swingy problem of the first few dice in FU.
I hope it helps, Chris. Let me know if/when you try it out.
This is interesting. Great article!
I’ve been playing with a hack myself, using a d12 instead of a d6, and applying bonuses and penalties as d8s, d10s or d12s, depending on how applicable they are to the situation.
Is there a list of FU Hacks anywhere? I’d love to see different approaches to opposed rolls, since that’s where I’m stuck right now.
Thanks Cezar!
I was also working on a d12 hack before I stumbled upon the system described here. Mine used far more traditional +1 / -1 modifiers though.
There is a list of fan-made games based on FU here: http://freeformuniversal.com/hacks/
Also, Vagrant Workshop make the Earthdawn: Age of Legend and Equinox games, Bill Edmunds produced Red Mists and (if you read french) Cedric Ferrand based his game Wastburg on elements of FU.
I did som. Simulation on this. It does give some strange results. For a start a stright yes or no can only happen when the total numzer of dice is odd. And the more dice rolled the more likely an and result becomes, even if the dice are balanced
Thanks for that Konrad! I knew about the straight ‘yes’ and ‘no’ result. I have no problem with that, as I say in the article I think the real interesting moments are with the qualifiers. I realise now I didn’t explicitly state that it’s only possible with an odd number of dice.
It is interesting that the “and” result becomes more likely with more dice even with equal numbers of positive and negative. My gut says that with equal numbers there is a 50/50 chance of the first die being one colour and another 50/50 chance of the next die being either colour, but you’re saying more dice increases the chance of both being the same colour! My head struggles with probabilities, so shouldn’t be surprised that they do something weird!
Here is a link to an AnyDice simulation for the dice mechanism from “Hot War” and “Sorcerer”. It uses a very similar system, where two opposed dice pools are rolled. If the player rolls the highest die, they get narrative rights (i.e. YES), while if the game master rolls the highest die they get narrative rights (i.e. NO). If the player and GM’s highest roll is tied, that pair of dice are discarded and the next highest pair is compared.
Can anyone good with probabilities or AnyDice tell me if this simulation delivers close to what I describe in the article? (I know it really only helps with determining yes/no probabilities).
http://anydice.com/program/8cb7
How strange that I stumble upon this hours after I decide to dig up my FU stuff and it’s from yesterday and not from years ago.
Anyways. I am a programmer and I made a dice roller to model your method. I hope I didn’t make a mistake.
In the spreadsheet below the columns are the number of positive and negative dice. Ie: p2 n1 is for 2 positive 1 negative. Each type of roll has been made 500000 times and the results are calculated in percentages.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RXrv3Cg7Xgo9i9Ga3TAX6pWIQ2qvWgvKEJ0nuLJ-kgE/edit?usp=sharing
Where the sum is 101 or 99% that’s because of rounding I don’t bother fixing. 🙂 It doesn’t really matter for this.
Wow! That’s fantastic Peter. It is really interesting and confirms what I suspected – that the first couple of extra dice give a good bonus (about 15%), but after that it diminishes significantly (less than 10% for each additional die).
I just realized that there must be at least 1 die of positive and negative so I removed those columns.
I like the fact that the more dice you roll the more chance there is to the extreme results ([Yes, and] and [No, and]) for example comparing p2n2 to p3n3
Off: I couldn’t find a way to register an account here. Is that available?
Yes, the more I look at that distribution, the more I like it!
By “register an account”, do you mean, follow the blog? I don’t have a forum, but there is a dedicated Facebook group now: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FUguru/
Also, you can sign-up for the newsletter. I won’t spam anyone, just send emails when something important is needed to be said.
There is also a blog RSS feed icon right down the very bottom of the page, in the righthand corner.
Hi Nathan, I really like both the original and the proposed die mechanisms. I think my only concern with FU was that there wasn’t a quantifiable way to measure damage (given/received). So, I’m definitely interested in adding just a LITTLE crunch to the system. There’s a certain level of satisfaction of a job well done when you see an opponents stats drop which just isn’t attainable in a purely narrated setting.
Also, somewhat related, as I understand it—Conditions are incurred as negatives but I was thinking about hacking Conditions for positive effects as well. (For Sir Calvin example above; “No body hurts my horse” becomes a + condition for his next move against the troll….?) To your point, the more mod dice rolled, the lower the benefit… so, just solve that… and it’s all gravy! right!? 🙂
Nathan, I like the general idea of coming up with an elegant, stackable resolve system.
Your approach goes in the right direction. I still would like to see improvements for two reasons: It’s hard to get a grip on probabilities and there are not enough clear Y/N decisions for my taste.
Suggestion:
1.) Highest die is qualifier Y/N (if same, next one decides etc)
2.) Highest *three* dice decide effect:
All three same color = Yes/No and…
Two same color as highest die = Yes/No
One same color as highest die = Yes/No but…
I came up with a very similar dice rolling system myself and I am curious about your opinion. It is somewhat similar to the one described above but get more and more reliable as you increase the dice count.
Here’s how it is:
1. you have 1 dice to start with
2. add dices for you positive things
3. add dices for your negative things. Remember how many negative dices you added. You will have to return them…
4. roll all the dice
5. return the negative dices. You have to return the highest ones, as many as you have gained in step 2.
6. your best remaining dice is the result, 6 being the Yes, and, 1 being the No, and, etc.
I like the idea, particularly the handful of dice! The Step 5 (returning highest dice) is relatively straightforward so long as players/GM remember what the penalty was in the first place. I wonder what the difference is (statistically) between this and just subtracting that number of dice before rolling is?
I believe the statistics are the the strongest part of this method. Without delving into statistics too much: the spread of this dice rolling are pretty close to the Rayleigh distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_distribution) which is a distribution to model multidimensional real world problems.
I have created a function and some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_distribution
– the first two examples (1v1 and 3v3) pits same numbers of dice on both sides. The higher the dice count, the more reliable the results are. Pros fight longer than amateurs because they don’t make big mistakes.
– the other two examples demonstrate the rolling is symmetrical: 5v3 mirrors 3v5. Also you can see Rayleigh in action: it is fairly common to get a decent victory but high degree of success is way more difficult and rare.
Anyone have any luck with this new dice-hack? It seems as if folks were happy w/ the probabilities.
In the case where the pos/neg dice are all cancelled, what does that mean for the action? Do you just reroll, or do you introduce an entirely new complication that is neither positive or negative?
Ex: “Do I hit the orc with my crossbow?” Pos: 2, 4; Neg: 2, 4 – something neutral occurs: skeletal hands rise from the graveyard where they are fighting, a child rushes in between the combatants in an attempt to pick up her teddy-bear, a dragon swoops down awakened by the noise of the fighting.
One issue is that thinking up these neutral occurrences is much harder than thinking up positive/negative occurrences.
I’ve come up with my own beating the odds roll, but I think in doing so I’ve come to new love for the original system. Classic rolls have been popular with my players and I think what others see as weaknesses are actually strengths for the pulp action games I run.
This is for folks who like easy to calculate odds and for each tag to have the same weight on success or failure.
Roll a d10 plus modifiers for Yes/No and a d6 or Fate die (dF) for the effect.
5 or less = No, 6 or better = Yes. Natural 10s are always Yes, and actual 1s are always No.
1,2 or – = But, 5,6 or + = And.
Same before roll overhead of adding/subtracting modifiers as classic, but each tag adds or subtracts 10% to success odds, with a minimum chance of 10% and a maximum of 90%. So you can quit piling on positive or negative modifiers one you’ve reach +/- 4, which is similar to the 4d cap I put on classic rolls.
FU points can be spent before rolling to add +1 modifier each. If the roll still fails, you get back those FU points + one more.
I have used a similar die + modifier system, though with a d12. I Kind of like the familiarity of such a system as it is very common in RPG’s to roll and add. Interestingly, “City of Mists” recently completed a Kickstarter and use the Apocalypse Engine (roll 2d6, beat 7+), with bonuses for relevant tags, which is also very similar.