Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: j.jacobsma@************.com j.jacobsma@************.com
Subject: 6-5-4 Dice Rolling Convention
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
A little context, first:

Our group uses what we call the 6-5-4 Dice Rolling Convention for skill tests. It goes
like this: roll 6-sided dice, as per standard SR rules. Re-roll any dice that show 5 or
above, adding 4 to the result of the re-roll. (Repeat re-rolls as needed.)

The standard way of rolling skill tests would then be the 6-6-6 convention: roll 6-siders,
re-roll 6's (and above), adding 6 to the result.

The common house rule a lot of groups use is the 6-6-5 convention: same as the 6-6-6
convention, but add 5 to re-rolls.

We use this convention because our gamemasters (myself and one other) are into math,
probability, & statistics (sad, neh?) and the discontinuities in the probability
function for various target numbers bothered us. The 6-5-4 convention, while still not
ideal, smoothes out the bumps in the probabilities. The players go along with it because
it actully improves their chances of success at higher target numbers (anything above 5).

We got this idea back in the dawn of Shadowrun, when nobody called it first edition, cause
it was the only edition. But the idea wasn't original with us, it came from the
rec.games.frp.cyber newsgroup, or this mailing list, or the RPG forum on Compu$erve, we
can't remember which.

Now the questions:

Does anyone out there know who originated this?

Do any other groups use this convention?

-- John Jacobsma <j.jacobsma@************.com>

------------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://four11.iname.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 6-5-4 Dice Rolling Convention, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.