Welcome to another exciting discussion about Game Design! I am excited that Dakka Dakka has created a nice new sub-forum for us to chat about this fun topic! Thanks Dakka Dakka.

Today, let's talk about Dice. Of course, everyone knows that the main function of dice is to be random number generators. They come in all different shapes and sizes. The likelihood of generating certain number and number combinations can change the probability of success. We all know this. The question becomes, how do you use these tools to enhance gameplay.

As always, share any innovative uses of Dice you have encountered. What is your preferred dice? D6, d10, d12, d20; something else? How do you use the probabilities in your games? How do you choose your dice type?

I look forward to the discussion in our new home!

As a mainly X-wing player, I use the custom d8's for the game. So I think I'll talk about those a bit.

Now, for those of you who don't know, X-wing uses two sets of dice- Red Attack dice, and Green defense dice. Attacker rolls a number of red dice equal to his ships attack stat, may modify them using any tokens assigned to his ship, and then the defender rolls a number of green defense dice equal to their ships evasion, and tries to cancel the attackers attacks. These Hits/Evades are represented by custom symbols.

Red Attack Dice: 1 Critical hit, 3 Hits, 2 "Focus", 2 Blanks
Green Defence Dice: 3 Evades, 2 "Focus", 3 Blanks

Each evade result will cancel one hit or Crit. Focus results can be turned into Hits or Evades by spending a focus token after rolling. Now, it would be easy to say "Hits are caused on a roll of 5-7, Crits are caused on a roll of 8. To cancel a hit, the defending player must roll 6+ on a d8. After rolling, you may spend a focus token to get a +2 on your roll". However, it is hard to tell what is a hit/miss/focus at a glance under that system, although the odds haven't changed.

Pros:
1) Custom dice make the results of your roll a lot easier to tell at a glance, and remove the necessity of a ton of math in order to tell what results are successful. It's easier to learn that blanks are bad, eyeballs require a focus token to be useful, and other symbols are good when I roll them, than it is to remember a bunch of numbers.
2) I also find that the instant Fail/Success/Dilemma results generated by easy-to-read symbols are more exciting than slowing down to sort numbers into what they mean, even for someone who is good with tons of number and modifiers.
3) Using symbols makes it easier to get your phrasing right- its a lot easier to say "re-roll a [blank]" than it is to say it's equivalent on a numeric d8.

Cons:

1)The dice are proprietary, meaning that if you lose any, or find that niche situation where you are rolling more than the expected amount of dice you have a problem, an you can't just grab replacements anywhere.
2) You can't simply add a +1 bonus to stuff- the only increment available is the 25% of focus results. Therefore, any modifiers you want to give have to work with the dice. Calculating the odds of "Convert 1 focus per attack" or "Re-roll one blank" is a lot more difficult for the designer than simply giving a flat bonus to attacks.
3) A lot of modifiers involve adding or subtracting dice, such as in Star Wars Armada where different dice may only be used at certain ranges. However, this is a fairly coarse way to alter the odds. A firepower 3 X-wing has a lot more punch than a Firepower 2 TIE Fighter- it's more than a flat 50%, and this is something you'll need to account for. One of the problems with this is that you need there to be fewer variables that can modify a roll. A numeric dice I can simply say that each condition will add or subtract one from my hit or evade rolls, while with these dice I need to be creative and cannot just say that each condition will add one attack or defense die, due to how they will spiral out of control.

I like dice that feel good in the hand and have a degree of heft (sorry teeny tiny dice that let you roll 50 at once, too small)

I generally don't like custom dice (especially where all the numbers are replaced) as it just tends to tie you in to a companies products

War Gaming,
It's really useful to be able to roll lots of actions at once, so each action should be 1 dice (so no 2d6 rolls please)

I prefer to have the added variability of a d10, (or d12) over d6s if there are meant to be different races, or wide ranges of technology
(if you're playing napoleonics d6s would be fine)

(I find d8s just don't roll well enough, but then I've never invested in nice d8s so maybe that's just me)

Roleplaying
For roleplaying I like percentile dice for most stuff, but by all means throw in almost all dice for occasional use (eg damage)

(but not d4's they're just silly)

Bordgames
Feel free to invent whatever crazy custom dice you like, or just use standard ones (but not d4s), they'll all come in the box anyway so as long as your mechanics do what you want it's cool

I think that more sides are better within reason, so if the game was designed so you don't need to roll many dice, might as well go for some bigger ones.

I like having more sides as it allows more depth, though i think I'll probably use d10s for the games i want to make, d6's are fine but they don't really do it for me. will need to make it so people wouldn't need to roll to many dice though.

Just a few thoughts:
- Games that use fewer dice tend to run faster - counting out multiple dice is more time consuming than picking up one
- Games with fewer dice types tend to run quicker - players aren't searching through their collection for the dice they need
- Games with fewer dice types tend to be more accommodating to new players - "Now which one was the 8-sided die? Was it the pyramid one or the diamond one?"
- Games with odd dice symbols are less accommodating - I've already got bags of them, and you want me to buy more* **
- Games with a unified dice mechanic run faster - everything rolls high or everything rolls low; no high for X action but low for Y action

*Exception for when the dice ARE the game. Things like Steve Jackson's Cthulhu Dice or Zombie Dice.
**Okay, so I'm a dice geek - I'll always buy more dice. I once destroyed a Magic 8 Ball so I'd have the icosahedron for in game divinations.

 Carlson793 wrote:
Just a few thoughts:
- Games that use fewer dice tend to run faster - counting out multiple dice is more time consuming than picking up one
- Games with fewer dice types tend to run quicker - players aren't searching through their collection for the dice they need
- Games with fewer dice types tend to be more accommodating to new players - "Now which one was the 8-sided die? Was it the pyramid one or the diamond one?"
- Games with odd dice symbols are less accommodating - I've already got bags of them, and you want me to buy more* **
- Games with a unified dice mechanic run faster - everything rolls high or everything rolls low; no high for X action but low for Y action

*Exception for when the dice ARE the game. Things like Steve Jackson's Cthulhu Dice or Zombie Dice.
**Okay, so I'm a dice geek - I'll always buy more dice. I once destroyed a Magic 8 Ball so I'd have the icosahedron for in game divinations.

Agree with most of these points, except for the one on custom dice. In games like X-wing or Armada, you get the dice in the starter set (Meaning the "I have to buy more?" is less of an issue), and the simple Good/Bad/Maybe result is a lot easier for new players to learn.

I prefer D6. When rolling hits and wounds in 40k.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Carlson793 wrote:
Just a few thoughts:
- Games that use fewer dice tend to run faster - counting out multiple dice is more time consuming than picking up one
- Games with fewer dice types tend to run quicker - players aren't searching through their collection for the dice they need
- Games with fewer dice types tend to be more accommodating to new players - "Now which one was the 8-sided die? Was it the pyramid one or the diamond one?"
- Games with odd dice symbols are less accommodating - I've already got bags of them, and you want me to buy more* **
- Games with a unified dice mechanic run faster - everything rolls high or everything rolls low; no high for X action but low for Y action

*Exception for when the dice ARE the game. Things like Steve Jackson's Cthulhu Dice or Zombie Dice.
**Okay, so I'm a dice geek - I'll always buy more dice. I once destroyed a Magic 8 Ball so I'd have the icosahedron for in game divinations.

Agree with most of these points, except for the one on custom dice. In games like X-wing or Armada, you get the dice in the starter set (Meaning the "I have to buy more?" is less of an issue), and the simple Good/Bad/Maybe result is a lot easier for new players to learn.

There are also just some things you can't really do without custom dice, or that are at least very hard. I like centralization but dislike having to add together multiple die rolls to get a result. For one of my current projects the solution has been to use a custom d20 numbered 1-8 with following # of faces:

1x1
2x2
3x3
4x4
5x4
6x3
7x2
8x1

This gets you a reasonable range 1-8, that produces more results in the middle than on the fringes and only needs you to roll a single die per resolution. I just couldn't get all these things if I was sticking to standard dice. I'd need 2d4 added together to get a vaguely similar range.

I often think of the "To Hit" system in Stars 'N' Bars ACW rules, which uses D100.

There is a table showing the percentage chance to hit for each troop type, each weapon and each range: For example, veterans with breech-loading rifles might be 16% at short range, 8% at long range (I made these up BTW.)

There is another table giving tactical modifiers: Flank fire = x1.5, Rear fire = x2, Target in cover = 0.5, and so on.

You multiply the To Hit chance by the tactical modifers, then you multiply it by the number of figures firing. This gives you a single die roll to resolve the whole shooting.

For example, let's say 15 veterans with breech-loaders attack an enemy at short range from the flank. The basic 16% is multiplied by 1.5 to 24%, then by 15 to 360%. This gives you three hits and a 60% chance of a fourth.

The point about this is not that I prefer D100 other dice combinations. It is that the dice have to suit the mechanism designed for the game. In this game, it's basically assumed that players will be pretty good at mental arithmetic. That would not be a good assumption if you were designing a game for younger players, who haven't got the experience with making calculations in their heads.

 Easy E wrote:
D6, d10, d12, d20; something else? How do you use the probabilities in your games? How do you choose your dice type?

For wargames, where strategy is in part based around figuring the statistical outcome of different options, I like there to be no "artificial obscurity". For this purpose I tend to prefer d10 or d20s. That way, I know from that start that everything works in nice 10% or 5% increments, and I can put my mind into looking for all the possible options rather than figuring out how many failed saves from how many wounds from how many hits, taking in accounts all the rerolls, over increments of 16.666667...

God, just writing it down makes my brain want to throw up.

Conceptually, dice are just a way to add a measure of uncertainty to the game. The more reliant the game is on dice rolls, the more arbitrary it becomes. At one extreme is chess, at the other is a dice off.

Psychologically, dice are a powerful physical component that, ironically, gives the player a sense of input or control.

The type of dice should reflect some meaningful aspect of the game. D6s are easy to understand (as they are very commonly used) and, with limited rolls and a unified, simple mechanic, would be well suited to faster, more approachable play but lack the ability to modify odds in smaller increments.
D100s, 1000s, etc. give a high degree of granularity, but often result in charts, tables, and other slower methods of interpretation that often appeals to those desiring a higher degree of detail at the expense of approachability.

One of my biggest gripes about many games is that they seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the probabilities involved with the dice choices. This most commonly occurs when designers seem to no understand probability curves and modifiers. For example, a d100 is extremely unpredictable compared to 3d6, which has a very regular distribution. Trying to show an elite shooter with a +5 modifier on a d100, reflects a poor understanding of the probabilities involved. OTOH, having such modifiers that rolls become guaranteed or unwinnable then brings in the question of why the roll is even made.

I like common d6 dice for simplicity and familiarity. One can do enough manipulations with them, if so inclined, but I'm increasingly a fan of mathless 1d6 over 2d6 or 3d6, and non-exploding for sure.

Otoh, if the budget allows, then I like custom dice with up to 4 pips and blank or special 1 and 6 faces. One can do more here, making the faces distinctive, and tweaking the odds.

As my main focus is boardgames design at the moment I gravitate towards custom dice, there is an elegant simplicity in showing a symbol over a set of numbers.

D6 despite all its faults is the cornerstone of dice, its familiar in shape and provides comfort to the average player it feels it rolls and from a practical standpoint its cheap especially if you want custom dice.

From a designers perspective either 2D6 with their bell curve or D10 and D20 that have a set % modifier are better and I would rather see them used in wargames more than the "bucket of dice" solution that usually involves D6.

If you're looking to throw X+ on multiple dice, the mathematical formula you want is called the Binomial Distribution. which does just that.

It looks a bit hairy scary, but fortunately most spreadsheets have a function for Binomials built in. That allows you to build a table, plotting the number of successes against the number of trials (=dice thrown) and allowing you to calculate the probability of each combination. The Excel function is called BINOM.DIST - I have a spreadsheet laid out if anyone ever wants a copy.

There is also an online dice probability calculator called Anydice that's very useful.

I don't think that the critique is that it is overly difficult to figure out the odds of certain results on multiple D6s, rather that just adding more dice becomes an increasingly cumbersome solution. For example, if each actor rolls 1 dice to act and 1 dice rolled to react, resolution requires two rolls to be made and read. Not bad. What if a unit has ten actors? Now it is 20 rolls. Add in a 3rd component roll and it is 30. Let's say instead that a single model rolls a dice with more results and multiple actors modify that roll based on the number involved instead. Assuming a good execution, this may be preferable as it scales better than just adding more and more dice.

Depends on the game you want to build. Multiple dice work just fine: - a squad attacking requires 1 attack dice in Stargrunt II, perhaps 4-5 in Tomorrow's War and 10+ in 40k, possibly requiring you to also keep track of special weapons separately. Modifiers work as long as they stay low compared to the random-number range - you don't want the D&D 3e problem where you wind up with characters rolling 1D20+35. Again, other systems vary the dice type. One thing about gamers - they sure love rolling the dice.

If you really need a huge pile of random numbers, a spreadsheet can roll as many as you like, and calculate all sorts of stats in the blink of an eye. And yes, I'm well aware of the shortfalls of sequential algorithmic "random" number generation.

I merely offered a way to assess probabilities, for a couple of reasons:

1) Reducing multiple dice to a single percentile roll on a pre-determined table may be a real time-saver;

2) Multiple-dice resolution may have the second axis of a variable target number and the designer, if not the players, needs to assess the relative merits of adding dice vs making it easier to hit.

One element that’s often missed is the act of dice rolling itself. Besides probability and all the rest, it’s an experience, part of the fun of the game. The act of rolling the dice is a major part of the feel of a game.

As an example, there’s a fun feeling of power in rolling bigger dice or more dice. Bloodbowl has, I think, the best version of this, where higher strength and assists gives you two dice, or even three dice. Two dice isn’t just more effective and safer, it feels more powerful. People often chase three dice when they shouldn’t, because it just feels more potent.

40K has plenty of problems, but I bet most people here remember the first time they landed a hit with a template that covered every model in a massive unit, or got their best assault unit in to combat, and then picked up a huge bucket of dice. For the last 20 years the game has been a tactical mess more often than not, but as beer and pretzels fun it’s almost always worked because of simple stuff like feeling powerful because you’re rolling a load of dice.

Now, I’m not saying that more dice always gives that feeling. Rolling 20 lasgun shots, only to pick up half and roll them again, then pick up a third and roll them again, and then tell your opponent to remove one model… well that doesn’t feel very powerful for long.

And nor is a feeling of power what a mechanic needs to evoke. That was just an example. Settlers of Catan has a simple two dice mechanic, but seeing the roll and then scanning the board to see what resources you’ve scored ends up feeling a lot like a craps game. It’s just inherently fun in itself. It was quite a revelation to me to play Settlers on computer and realise how much of the fun went away when the roll was just a flicker on the screen.

In another game you might want a feeling of detail or accuracy. In those games a D100 supplemented with modifiers and tables to look up likely give a feeling of authenticity to the roll.

Speed of resolution and the right kind of probability spread matter, they matter a lot. But if they were all that mattered then we’d just do all this on computer and lose nothing. There is a lot to be said for the feel that different mechanics give a game, especially dice rolling mechanics.

Depends on whether you get bonuses. And rolling three times means that there's lots of room for adding diversity to those bonuses.

I am a fan of d10s - they give a bit more range and are almost as accessible as d6s given the amount of RPGs out there that use percentile.

A thing I have been wracking my brain around is more the amount of dice used at once.

"Buckets of Dice" vs. Some sort of Combat rating.
Say for like a 40k size game (no super heavy craziness, just squad based)

On the one hand you have ease with the buckets. More models in a unit = more dice rolled (depending on attacks). Sometimes this can be cumbersome when you have to roll around 100 or so dice (we have used a laundry hamper to roll dice in before)

Then, theres a combat rating where the model count and weapon strength adds dice to a pool. Modifiers would be more or less dice. but never to the vast numbers of bucket of dice.

This causes more math on the player though, and seems much slower than just saying "I got 10 guys with one attack, I need 10 dice"

Larger die types though fill up a hand much quicker than d6s so the "bucket of dice" method could be more cumbersome

Momotaro wrote:
There is also an online dice probability calculator called Anydice that's very useful.

I've been getting a lot of useful help out of AnyDice, especially given my non-existent statistics or calculus background.

Dice-wise, I've started to get away from looking at single dies of any type just because of the inherent randomness of rolling any number rather than a particular range.
More than three to four dice at one time though is probably unnecessary once you've covered the peak or bell curve possibilities available to a few d10s/d12s or a d20.

Physically, I've never cared for the d4 at all, and I think that most of the time both d8s and d20s don't roll (or stop for the 20) as well as the d6s, d10s, or d12s tend to do; I will admit to owning a d30 though.


One idea I've been looking at (which I'm sure is already inherent to some game) is having the type of dice used be distinctive to signify what they are being rolled for; I.E. d6s are for cover and point defense, d10s are model skill, d12s for missiles/rockets, etc etc.
With the right (small) set of modifiers (+ or -, but not both) and/or number of dice rolled using that distinction seems a workable idea, and is probably a lot simpler than systems where you either use different types together or else go up and down types for whatever game mechanism occurs.

_
_

Graxous wrote:
I am a fan of d10s - they give a bit more range and are almost as accessible as d6s given the amount of RPGs out there that use percentile.

A thing I have been wracking my brain around is more the amount of dice used at once.

"Buckets of Dice" vs. Some sort of Combat rating.

Say for like a 40k size game (no super heavy craziness, just squad based)

"I got 10 guys with one attack, I need 10 dice"

I find d10s to be essentially similar to d6s, merely doubling the potential non-CF / non-CH results from 4 to 8. A d10 is functionally identical to a d6, except it Crits less often. One nice thing about d6s is that it allows (forces) very clear distinctions between things, due to the larger step size, versus agonizing between a 6+ and a 7+. Beware of forcing d10 over d6, simply to not use d6s.

Buckets of dice are actually a bad thing, as they become less-random, but rather approach statistical certainty. This makes almost no sense for armies like Orks, which are supposed to vary wildly.

40k-sized games are problematic due to the game scale itself, 50-ish models per side in a typical game.
____

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
Dice-wise, I've started to get away from looking at single dies of any type just because of the inherent randomness of rolling any number rather than a particular range.
More than three to four dice at one time though is probably unnecessary once you've covered the peak or bell curve possibilities available to a few d10s/d12s or a d20.

Physically, I've never cared for the d4 at all, and I think that most of the time both d8s and d20s don't roll (or stop for the 20) as well as the d6s, d10s, or d12s tend to do; I will admit to owning a d30 though.

One idea I've been looking at (which I'm sure is already inherent to some game) is having the type of dice used be distinctive to signify what they are being rolled for; I.E. d6s are for cover and point defense, d10s are model skill, d12s for missiles/rockets, etc etc.
With the right (small) set of modifiers (+ or -, but not both) and/or number of dice rolled using that distinction seems a workable idea, and is probably a lot simpler than systems where you either use different types together or else go up and down types for whatever game mechanism occurs.

Mechanically, I think you want a 2dX game, that modifies up/down to a 3dX game, discarding the highest or lowest die. I believe HGB is like that.

Physically, consider a dice tower, or else dice cups with a dice tray. I personally have a felted dice cup, and I think it adds to the experience.

I'm not huge on mixed die sizes, especially mixed die sizes for the sake of mixing die sizes. And then specifically omitting d4s and d8s because of personal preference. For the scale of d6-d12, I think you are basically describing a chromed-up d6 system. Unless you have a very clear reason for polyhedrals, and why one mechanic is d10 and the other is d12, and why neither can use the other's die.

Many old board wargames are played using a single D6 and a combat results table (CRT) which gives you a matrix of the ratio of attack versus defence and the effect for each die result. You can also have modifiers to the die or to the column.

The great advantage of this is that it is very quick to use if you can get your head around working out the odds.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Many old board wargames are played using a single D6 and a combat results table (CRT) which gives you a matrix of the ratio of attack versus defence and the effect for each die result. You can also have modifiers to the die or to the column.

Classic example: Ogre. which requires summation of attack power divided by defense, to find the column.

Numerically, I think this could just as well have been handled by individual A rolls, removing the summing and division mini-game, at the expense of more dice being rolled.

IMO, the best system I've seen is how Super Dungeon Explore / Conan handle it, with a variable number of custom dice giving up to 4 pips that the player simply counts. Very fast, very smooth, and very granular from a design perspective.

I will agree, this is one of the things I test atm and it work quite well.

Off the top of my head, I can't remember if the OGRE/GEV CRT chart also allowed for DRMs (e.g. minus 1 if the target is in cover.) No doubt there are wargames where you do have DRMs as well as the odds based CRT.

It could be replicated by multiple die rolling. I don't know if such would be any quicker. Multiple die rolling certainly would become slower when DRMs need to be taken into account, as in AoS.

One of the things about odds calculations charts is that once the players have got used to them, they become easier to use, while you will never reduce the time it takes to roll and count 50 dice. Perhaps a dice rolling app could be used, though from what I gather, a lot of people like rolling lots of dice.

It partly depends if you see the important bit as working out the result, or getting the result.

The Ogre CRT increased defense 2x or 3x depending on terrain ("cover"). It's actually rather excessively involved.

I submit that it is a fundamental design flaw if any individual resolution step requires a dozen dice. Or more.

Could you clarify the SDE/Conan system?

Having a d6 as a randomizer only to largely offset it by large dice volume is counterproductive. 10 models each testing with a d6 is a very different effect than a group of 40 models each rolling d6. 40k hits this because it can't decide if it wants to be skirmish or squad scale so does both pretty poorly. For units, each should only use the randomizer on a per unit basis with modifiers based on it's relative strength, morale, etc. Rolling for each model when everything is in squads is poor design, especially with multiple rolls required per model. Likewise, casualty tracking on a per model basis in unnecessary- the unit is either functioning normally, reduced effectiveness or functionally destroyed.

SDE / Conan have 3 "levels" of dice:
a) X 0 0 1 1 2
b) Y 0 1 1 2 3
c) Z 0 1 2 3 4

Characters and monsters are rated with Attack / Defense dice, for opposed die tests. A typical SDE Hero might have an aaa or bb rating in their primary stats, and aa in their secondary stats. This gives the designer quite a bit of granularity in assigning power levels. Players roll the dice and it's easy to count pips, because it's usually a small number.


The rules for SDE are available for download:
http://sodapopminiatures.com/media/downloads/super-dungeon-explore-rulebook-1_5-web.pdf

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
Dice-wise, I've started to get away from looking at single dies of any type just because of the inherent randomness of rolling any number rather than a particular range.
One idea I've been looking at (which I'm sure is already inherent to some game) is having the type of dice used be distinctive to signify what they are being rolled for; I.E. d6s are for cover and point defense, d10s are model skill, d12s for missiles/rockets, etc etc.
With the right (small) set of modifiers (+ or -, but not both) and/or number of dice rolled using that distinction seems a workable idea, and is probably a lot simpler than systems where you either use different types together or else go up and down types for whatever game mechanism occurs.

Mechanically, I think you want a 2dX game, that modifies up/down to a 3dX game, discarding the highest or lowest die. I believe HGB is like that.

I'm not huge on mixed die sizes, especially mixed die sizes for the sake of mixing die sizes. And then specifically omitting d4s and d8s because of personal preference. For the scale of d6-d12, I think you are basically describing a chromed-up d6 system. Unless you have a very clear reason for polyhedrals, and why one mechanic is d10 and the other is d12, and why neither can use the other's die.

For the type of game I'm futzing about with not using d4 or d8 also gave a better average range for how I wanted to use the d6s, alongside not having to get into how to separate the same die type within the same roll result.

Namely because the activating player rolls unopposed [xd10+x] - [xd6+x] looking for a 0 or better; 2d6, 3d6, or 4d6 represents how much protection from using terrain the target has at that particular moment, with very few potential modifiers to either die type.
Everything is so accurate in the technological assumptions for the setting that within the time and distance of a turn accounting for any target movement or range within the visual horizon would be too inconsequential.

Out of the working concepts I already dropped 5d6 as being too flat a curve, and 3d10 as being too great an advantage over basic [lowest 2 of 3d10] skill.
Moderate skill will use 2d10, and advanced skill [highest 2 of 3d10].

Missiles, some rockets, gun launched guided projectiles will use the d12s in an opposed roll vs the target countermeasures and point defense systems.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
For the type of game I'm futzing about with not using d4 or d8 also gave a better average range for how I wanted to use the d6s, alongside not having to get into how to separate the same die type within the same roll result.

Namely because the activating player rolls unopposed [xd10+x] - [xd6+x] looking for a 0 or better; 2d6, 3d6, or 4d6 represents how much protection from using terrain the target has at that particular moment, with very few potential modifiers to either die type.
Everything is so accurate in the technological assumptions for the setting that within the time and distance of a turn accounting for any target movement or range within the visual horizon would be too inconsequential.

Out of the working concepts I already dropped 5d6 as being too flat a curve, and 3d10 as being too great an advantage over basic [lowest 2 of 3d10] skill.
Moderate skill will use 2d10, and advanced skill [highest 2 of 3d10].

Missiles, some rockets, gun launched guided projectiles will use the d12s in an opposed roll vs the target countermeasures and point defense systems.

It seems to me that you should simply assume that all weapons automatically hit. Defender attempts to save via cover / armor. Then assess damage based on weapon characteristsics. That could be a cleaner mechanic.

Why do you need/want to use so many different dice in so many combinations for different types of weapons?

You could work out the percentage hit/save for each weapon and cover combination, then do a matrix to show it. Players can multiply the To Kill chance by the number of weapons firing. If two different weapons are firing, players add the chances together.

I agree streamlined single dice type with as few steps as possible is the preference these days.

Hence, the preference to remove dice rolls whereever possible. Criticals are great. Automatics are also preferable to testing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I submit that it is a fundamental design flaw if any individual resolution step requires a dozen dice. Or more.

I submit that you’re wrong

As I said above, there’s something to be said for a feeling of scale that comes from a lot of dice. If you’re mostly dealing with two and three dice rolls, and then you attack with your elite, most powerful unit and pick up 15 dice, well that has a feel to it that a +x modifier just won’t bring.

It is an issue if huge buckets of dice are needed constantly. Shadowrun needed 5 to 10 dice for every basic action and that dragged combat to a grind. One of the many reasons 40K mechanics chew up so much time is the massive number of dice you need to roll for every unit’s attack, especially because you have to roll three times (hit, wound and save). Or Axis and Allies - 10 or 15 for minor attacks, upwards of 50 rolls for bigger attacks, yuk.

But when it’s used well larger dice pools can give a visceral feel. Now I’m not saying that you need more dice, that the visceral feel is all important, or that increased dice numbers are the only way to get that feeling, just saying that mechanics that can include some big dice rolls aren’t necessarily bad.

It deoends on what a player wants from the game.

Lots of people like rolling lots of dice. We probably all do at some time or other. It isn't the only point to consider, though.

For a lot of games, the important part is making strategic or tactical decisions. The combat resolution is just a mechanical process that has to be done to find out the result.

 Carlson793 wrote:

"Now which one was the 8-sided die? Was it the pyramid one or the diamond one?"

that killed me thanks for the morning laugh

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It deoends on what a player wants from the game.

Lots of people like rolling lots of dice. We probably all do at some time or other. It isn't the only point to consider, though.

For a lot of games, the important part is making strategic or tactical decisions. The combat resolution is just a mechanical process that has to be done to find out the result.

It’s not an either/or situation, both elements should be working together. Of course the mechanics should be based around tactical decisions, but that’s not the only thing that matters. There is nothing stopping a game having both tactical considerations, and a mechanical system that is fun to play. I’m honestly at a loss as to why someone would just refuse to consider one of those elements.

And to clarify, I’m not arguing just for more dice, that’s only one kind of experience. As I said in my earlier post there’s plenty of dice rolls that have an inherent kind of fun to them – Settlers of Catan has a mechanic that’s quite similar to a craps game, and fun in the same way. D100 games will often feel more scientific or precise, even when the % differences are actually quite irrelevant. Rolling bigger dice can be fun in the same way that rolling more dice is – I remember in Earthdawn getting so hooked on upgrading from D6s to D8s, then D10s, then D12s and so on that it actually distracted me from how dull the combat engine in the game really was.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
.. should simply assume that all weapons automatically hit.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
... use so many different dice in so many combinations .. do a matrix to show it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
.. streamlined .. is the preference these days.

Perhaps the small number of dice (not used as either pools or buckets; you'd only need 10 in total, not ''many'' of each type) fit and were most appropriate for how the game should/needs to play out (yeah, I know I didn't get into any details about it to set the context of usage).
Cutting everything down to an ultra-simplistic, bare bones, D6-only save system mechanic suitable for a less than ten pages long beer & pretzel non-simulation game was not an intent.

But yeah, no worries; I'll think about it.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
.. should simply assume that all weapons automatically hit.

Cutting everything down to an ultra-simplistic, bare bones, D6-only save system mechanic suitable for a less than ten pages long beer & pretzel non-simulation game was not an intent.

But yeah, no worries; I'll think about it.

That may not have been your original intent, but it might make for a "better" game, depending on one's definition of "better". The key question for you is whether you need so many flavors of dice, by understanding the smallest number of flavors required to get the results you need. Just because you have a lot of flavors right now, that doesn't mean your game will "need" them to get good tactical play. It could be that you are OK with just d6s and d10s.

As an aside, it appears that you conflate brevity with "beer & pretzels". Chess is a 1-page game and Go is a 1-paragraph game; neither would be considered "beer & pretzels", given the vast resources devoted toward narrow AI playing both games. KOG light is deliberately brief, and it is quickly evolving into a very tactical game. With its emphasis on cover, I am pretty sure I could mod KL into a CQB airsoft simulation in short order, using 1/35 scale military model figures for a 1:1 figure:ground scale (4'x6' board = 140' deep x 210' wide field) and TLOS.

YMMV, but my experience is that it is harder to write a hyper-streamlined d6-only game with a sub-10-page hard limit than it is to write a larger game with boatloads of chrome.

When KL goes gamma, I'll ask you to revisit it, OK?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
YMMV, but my experience is that it is harder to write a hyper-streamlined d6-only game with a sub-10-page hard limit than it is to write a larger game with boatloads of chrome.

Definitely. It's probably the most important point in game design.

And to add to it, it's worth noting that most very rules heavy games will have a very small set of rules at their core, with lots of special rules and unit types off those core rules making up the bulk. The games that don't have that simple core tend to be quite bad, messy and with no central strategy to follow.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It deoends on what a player wants from the game.

Lots of people like rolling lots of dice. We probably all do at some time or other. It isn't the only point to consider, though.

For a lot of games, the important part is making strategic or tactical decisions. The combat resolution is just a mechanical process that has to be done to find out the result.

It’s not an either/or situation, both elements should be working together. Of course the mechanics should be based around tactical decisions, but that’s not the only thing that matters. There is nothing stopping a game having both tactical considerations, and a mechanical system that is fun to play. I’m honestly at a loss as to why someone would just refuse to consider one of those elements.
... ...

Indeed not, but what I mean is that given a choice of a slow combat resolution, or a quick one, the quick one is normally preferable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Indeed not, but what I mean is that given a choice of a slow combat resolution, or a quick one, the quick one is normally preferable.

Sure speed is generally preferred. I guess what I’d say is that a resolution doesn’t always have to be as quick as possible, but where it isn’t, make sure you have a good reason for having a more time consuming mechanic.

That's exactly right.

For example, in AoS, GW have retained the old To Hit, To Wound, To Save process (with additional modifiers and special rules.)

A lot of people like this, and it has the advantage of being very familiar to existing GW players.

However, if AoS is meant to be a simpler game aimed at new players, it needn't have the complication of the three stage process. To Hit, To Save would be better and quicker, while still preserving a role for both players during the resolution.

@KK - I completely agree. But IMO, the Hit-Save-Wound process isn't what kills AoS as a beginner-friendly game. It's the sheer volume of Unit-specific Special Rules and minor variations thereof. That's what makes it a mess.

KOG light actually does simplify the mechanic to 2 steps:
1. to-Attack (per weapon & skill), then
2. to-Damage (vs target Defense).
As KOG light is individual model targeting, I don't need to make this "interactive".

The GW "snap fire" and "save" steps exists to break up an otherwise really long player turn, due in large part to "closest first" micromanagement the excessive army sizes we are now seeing, far in excess of what would have been 2,000 pts under 40k3, back when 1,500 pts was the norm (and played smooth & faster).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's exactly right.

For example, in AoS, GW have retained the old To Hit, To Wound, To Save process (with additional modifiers and special rules.)

A lot of people like this, and it has the advantage of being very familiar to existing GW players.

That's a pretty good example. I remember a GW article years ago that talked about giving the other player the save roll gave him a feeling of ownership over the attacked unit. That there's a different feeling between watching your opponent roll saves and taking off your models, and your rolling your saves.

So even though mechanically its the same, and is a little more time consuming, it still makes sense because it gives the players a different feel.

However, if AoS is meant to be a simpler game aimed at new players, it needn't have the complication of the three stage process. To Hit, To Save would be better and quicker, while still preserving a role for both players during the resolution.

Yeah, I roll to hit, you roll to save would be simpler, and retain all the strengths of the old system. Not the biggest problem with AoS, of course.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

Cutting everything down to an ultra-simplistic, bare bones, D6-only save system mechanic suitable for a less than ten pages long beer & pretzel non-simulation game was not an intent.

But yeah, no worries; I'll think about it.

There is a great strength to be found in streamlining a design to use as few components and steps as possible and it can still be of a simulator nature, everybody can make a bloated design with many steps and lots of moving parts, not everybody can do it engaging, but making a game of simulator nature with lots of resolution steps and many moving parts by itself is not that remarkable.

On the other hand making a system that is streamlined with as few as possible moving parts and as few steps as possible for resolution is not easy at all, I would not dismiss a streamlined system as a bare bones beer and pretzel only worthy, love letter is highly esteemed among game designers because of the gameplay of what it achieves with so few components.

De Bellis Antiquitatis is a good example of a highly successful rulebook that uses very simple mechanisms. It is greatly simplified compared to the preceding WRG Ancients rulebook yet while somewhat less realistic, is far from "beer and pretzels".

In DBA you use D6 dice and they have two functions. One is the roll for PIPs (Player Initiatiive Points) at the start of your turn. You use one PIP to activate a unit. The second is combat resolution. You and your opponent roll one die each and add various modifiers. The higher is the winner. The exact results depend on the types of troops involved and various tactical factors.

Together with the small size of armies, this makes for a fast playing game that still retains a lot of tactical decision making.

At times designers confuse unnecessary complexity with "realism". This was a huge issue with miniature, wargame, and RPG design in the 80s and 90s. Bloated tables, tons of factors, lots of various sided dice, etc. As a designer, the biggest question you have to answer off the bat is, "What is my focus?" and design around that. Do you want a quickplaying skirmish game with emphasis on bravery and equipment choices? A detailed simulation of early WW2 armored conflict in arid regions? A large scale army game that incorporates regional politics?

Because, just like history or any good story, you can't include it all. You have to trim it to the effective bits aimed at your goal.

DBA is an excellent example, Here the designers lay their goal out upfront and designed a system that reflects it. It doesn't try to be everything, but succeeds at what it tries to be. Too many poor rules sets just push setting or fluff and don't have a coherent goal as a rule set, and become a sprawling mess.

This is an interesting point, though somewhat off the topic, so I'm going to start a separate thread about it.

That would be nice.

I've played various skirmish level games, but 40k is the only squad level game.

What are some good examples of squad level wargames that do not use a large dice pool / buckets of dice?

I'm trying to find an alternative to number of attacks or damage as related to a unit size.

Not a bad thing to separate the concept of realism from dice.

Here, I think the question was more about streamlining workflow and manipulation of dice - more of a complexity question than anything else.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
But yeah, no worries; I'll think about it.

There is a great strength to be found in streamlining a design to use as few components and steps as possible and it can still be of a simulator nature,
I would not dismiss a streamlined system as a bare bones beer and pretzel only worthy,

Which is the point I've (quite unsuccessfully) been trying to make.
Beyond lack of interested players there are reasons I don't choose to play games like 40K, Tomorrow's War, or those old 80's/90's incredibly, frustratingly so, minutia-level ''detailed wargames'' so I'm in agreement with simplifying what needs simplified.

I believe in sticking whenever and wherever possible to ABC - accuracy, brevity, clarity.
Yet when a game minimizes most all connection, if not totally divorces itself, from any kind of background setting (I.E. so as to use whichever miniatures in however a mix) for the sake of pure gameplay, then yes, that is what I would define as being a beer & pretzels game.



I spent time on and off over a month plus to come up with the most minimal system to get the odds I thought would work with the concept I had in mind; the last thing I want to keep getting thrown in my face is ''too complex'' when I've never even shared that overall concept beyond minor details.
My intent here was just to add to the discussion by putting forth another way to do dice rolling, while still avoiding a lot of modifier or complexity issues, without being totally d6 or dice-pool only.
Or not going with the typical simulation wargame style of going up, down, and/or mixing dice types alongside the usage of charts.


If those dice types or ideas change down the road, fine - it happens, and to some extent should be likely to happen.
But why anyone here thinks in the first place I want to throw out everything I've done to this point to start over completely from scratch, again, instead of being able to more fully flesh things out enough to test what works or doesn't work......

Step back a little and breathe, y'all, it's not like I'm not trying to piss in anybody's cornflakes or anything.

_
_

@Smilodon - I think maybe you took the commentary badly, and I'm sorry if you read in some sort of intent there. To me, on first reading, it's overly-complex.

Also, while I understand that you believe streamlining = "beer & pretzels", I have to disagree with that. I find 40k a B&P game, and it's very far from streamlined.

As far as I am concerned there are lots of valid uses of dice and different dice sizes across a wide range of games.

If the rules are written focusing on the game play, and the resolution methods are in synergy with the intended game play.Its good game design.

I am rather tired of people simply saying swap the D6 for D10 or D12 to make the game more detailed. When the way the D6 are used in the rules is very limited and restricted.
I prefer to utilize D6 fully, if resolving 10+ dice rolls at a time.

Right, just swapping dice size doesn't change the core dynamics of the rules, just the probability curve.

So...dice.

As pointed out above, when rolling large numbers of dice, the results tend to be statistical, right?

I've wondered, but never bothered to take the time to figure out, whether or not the 'buckets' of dice that get thrown (in 40K) could be reasonably reduced to a 2D6 (2-12) roll, where the 'average' number of positive results was pegged to 7 (or 5-7, /shrug). 5 Scatter Laser jet bikes produce 20 shots at BS4. On average, ~14 hit. So, rather than roll 20 dice, why not roll two for a bell curve distribution? Or if resolving 10 models with 4 attacks each on the charge (with WS equal to their opponents'); 20 attacks hit on average. Rolling 2D6 cuts down on the amount of time it takes to tally results.

When rolling a smaller number of dice, just rolling the dice would probably be more convenient, it's just when rolling silly amounts. Re-rolls would just change the expected outcome before the 2D6 get rolled.

What would be a good reason to use 10+ dice in a single roll? At that point you are pretty much normalizing the results to the average with 6 sided dice and largely defeating the whole point of a randomizer. Use a lesser number of dice and consolidate the individuals into a unit. Instead of rolling 1 dice for 20 men, roll 1 dice for the unit and interpret that.

Edit: DCannon4Life beat me to it.

 jmurph wrote:
What would be a good reason to use 10+ dice in a single roll? At that point you are pretty much normalizing the results to the average with 6 sided dice and largely defeating the whole point of a randomizer. Use a lesser number of dice and consolidate the individuals into a unit. Instead of rolling 1 dice for 20 men, roll 1 dice for the unit and interpret that.

Edit: DCannon4Life beat me to it.

The biggest reason I can see is that you get more of a 'feel' for the weapon when the dice type/quantity represents it. For example, a Kheres Assault Cannon throwing six dice give a real sense of the weapon spinning up and unleashing a storm of shells, compared to the single, powerful 'feel' of one-shot/one-dice lascannon or meltagun. Likewise, 30 Ork Boyz getting into combat requires a massive amount of dice to be rolled, as it should be; you've got a lot of very angry very hitty greenskins swinging all manner of sharp and pointy objects about.

I appreciate to some people, that'll mean absolutely nothing and from a purely practical standpoint, requiring loads of dice slows the game down and adds 'nothing'... what it actually adds, I think, is character and fun, without which I reckon there's very little point to a game. Abstractions are all well and good, but if I have 10 guys shooting automatic weapons and I'm rolling a whopping 2 dice, I feel short-changed!

DCannon4Life wrote:
As pointed out above, when rolling large numbers of dice, the results tend to be statistical, right?

Pretty much. If you are going full Ork Charge, that's 3 dice x 20 Boyz = 60 dice. You are not going to roll sixty 1s or sixty 6s. It's going to make a curve. So might as well tabulate it.

Or, better yet, move to a unit vs unit game instead of a model vs model skirmish game.

If the game is using the appropriate minatures scale for the size of the game.Then players are happy to roll for units, rather than individual models in larger battle games.
EG most larger battle games use 6mm to 15mm minatures and roll for units.

But even so if we have 4 hypothetical HMG teams firing on the same target, say 6 hypothetical enemy infantry teams in a infantry platoon.
And the HMG teams rolls 3 D6 each.(12 D6 total.)

This is still rolling more than 10 D6 in a war game using D6s for resolving unit interaction.

As pointed out in games like 40k, players are much more invested in every model.And as such want to roll a dice for every model.
And every attempt to roll a D10/2D6/D20 for a units attacks in 40k re-writes, has met with low uptake/interest in my experience..

I have to agree. A lot of people who play 40K and AoS like to roll a lot of dice. Paradigm gave some reasons in his post on the previous page.

It would be easy to tabulate buckets of dice rolls, but people don't bother.

If there is a reason for this, I think it's because playing the game is more important than finding the result of it. This may be a characteristic of beer and pretzels style games, not that they always use lots of dice.

It would be interesting to know if tournament players of 40K and AoS ever use tabulated dice rolls to save time. I am guessing that a tournament player is more interested to see if he wins than how many 6s he can roll in 30 dice.

However a lot of people go to tournaments purely because it guarantees them a lot of games against different opponents.

There is something physically enjoyable in rolling a pile of dice, it also has the advantage of giving an easily assessed supremacy indicator by how huge the pile is.

I disagree and hate piles of dice mechanics, my description of 40k has been "my pile of dice shoot your pile of dice so when I hit you in close combat my pile of dice will be bigger than your pile of dice" but dismissing their psychological impact in the players enjoyment is a huge mistake.

I think the problem is 40k is such an awful rule set to start with, it tends to use even reasonable game design ideas in excess.

And it may be this excess that turn some players off?

Rolling handfuls of D6 in a game is accepted and players are happy with, in most well written rule sets.

Rolling BUCKETFULS of D6 in 40k is a result of very poor game design being let run unchecked for too long.

Lanrak wrote:
Rolling handfuls of D6 in a game is accepted and players are happy with, in most well written rule sets.

Rolling BUCKETFULS of D6 in 40k is a result of very poor game design being let run unchecked for too long.

Yup. I set my over/under at a dozen.

5-6 is my upper limit too.

Not sure on the lower limit though.

If it's a single model activiation, isn't your lower limit 1?

Could be 0 but maybe the player experience would be more rich if it was 2 or 3.

If it's zero, then you're not rolling anymore.

I have a theoretical cap of 3 dice for a single model, preferring a high 1 or low-mid 2.

Yes, its a design were the action has a minimum output and dice add extra, so a 0 dice action has a definite result.

Setting some number as the most dice you’ll accept is arbitrary and fairly meaningless. If someone says five dice is their limit, then apparently they’ll dismiss a game that requires them to make single roll of 10 dice once in the game, but be happy with a game that has them roll 5 dice for every single activation in the game. Which is silly, of course.

What matters is how appropriate the mechanical complexity is to the game. And mechanical complexity isn’t just dice numbers, but the complexity of mods added to the roll, and the difficulty of assessing success and failure. If the number of dice scale fairly well with the scale and importance of actions, and in general don’t require too many dice, modifiers or interpretation then it’s good design even if once or twice in a game you roll a whole bunch of dice.

Lanrak wrote:
Rolling BUCKETFULS of D6 in 40k is a result of very poor game design being let run unchecked for too long.

Yeah, as I said a few pages back, there’s a good argument for showing a bigger, more powerful attack with loads more dice. But when ten Guardsmen roll 20 dice and expect maybe one kill, and then you do it again with a different ten guardsmen, and then again then it’s bloated design.

I believe it has meaning, I do not like systems that spiral out of control, for example in 40k each action usually is a single dice or two, but the units performing the action can be 30 models spiraling out of control.

I much prefer to have limits on what happens, should the design break such limits? maybe if there is a good excuse, but setting limits really helps.

Exactly. The designer should have an idea of what makes a good game, and how their game should play. If the concept is buckets of dice, fine, but that's not something I find desirable. I want smaller, more meaningful die rolls, where randomness actually matters.

There were lots of ways of dealing with the removal of shooting modifiers making shooting in 40k over powered compared to assault in 3rd ed onward.

Adding an opposed stat to BS (Stealth or Evasion ), and/or simple suppression system would have been better than just adding more models/ablative wounds to assault units.(Not to mention upping the basic movement rate and moving in all phases.to reduce the tactical maneuver in the game , making alpha strike issues worse!)

And maybe if the assault units did not die in droves to unrestricted shooting, maybe we would not need them to inflict so many attacks per model to try to balance their effectiveness.But just increase the WS of models to an appropriate level to represent the effects of extra attacks ?

EG max unit size 20 models, and all attacks in assault roll 1 dice per model , but the WS of assault units is better, and we use a table with more than just 3 results to hit in close combat...

I find it quite amusing that all elements of poor game development can be found in 40k.Its a sort of go to rule set to show people what not to do.

Lanrak wrote:
I find it quite amusing that all elements of poor game development can be found in 40k.Its a sort of go to rule set to show people what not to do.

And deservedly so, for prioritizing sale of total number of models over playability.

It's weird to see one of the most successful wargames be called a "go to rule set to show people what not to do." What's not to do is all the stuff that defunct, unsuccessful, and never-successful games require people to do.

Popular doesn't equal good.

McDonald's is very popular. Not particularly good, though.

Bad can be successful and influential. Entertainment media is full of this.

It's kind of like saying the Kardashians should be role models because they are "successful".

This is sort of a cross-post from my other topic but it is relevant as it deals with different ways to utilize dice.

In our play-testing with a new playgroup we encountered an issue that has not been until now. Most of the testers we've been playing with have been miniatures gamers or at least those that have had experience with miniatures games. This new group was mostly board gamers, some TCG players but have had no real experience with miniatures games. They unfortunately had trouble with one of the basic concepts when dealing with Head to Head roll-offs. When there are multiple units that are acting at the same time, there is a contested roll that is made by both players to see how the actions resolve.

For an example we'll say the following players had two characters with the following attributes:
Player A - Ranged: 6, Physical: 7
Player B - Ranged: 7, Physical: 4

The base to hit number a player wants to roll greater than or equal in order to succeed is based on their skill they are using. Then if there are any modifiers, depending on range or abilities, they would modify the target to succeed. For simplicity we'll say there are no modifiers in play.

The active Player A is shooting at Player B, so he would be rolling 4d10 trying to roll a 6 and higher to succeed based on his Ranged skill. The reactive Player B decides to respond by shooting back so would roll 2d10 trying to roll a 7 or higher to succeed. Both players roll their dice, first determining how many success were rolled.

Player A rolled 4, 2, 7, 9
Player B rolled 3, 8

The results 3 and 4 don't succeed so we ignore them. That leaves Player A with 2 successes and Player B with with 1 success. We determine if any results cancel each other. Successful rolls higher than the other players success could cancel them out. Starting with the lowest success, Player A's 7 is canceled by Player B's 8. Then Player A's 9 cancels out Player B's 8 resulting in Player A scoring one hit against Player B. Player B would roll an armor save to determine if he takes a wound or not.

Player A rolled 4, 2, 3, 8
Player B rolled 3, 8

The results 2, 3, 4, and 4 are not successes so we ignore them. Player A and Player B both have an 8, since none is higher than the other they do not cancel and are both considered a hit. Player A ends up shooting Player B with one hit and vice versa. They both now roll an armor save to determine if they take a wound or not.

Trying New Things

You should never be afraid to try out new mechanics or attempt to simplify things. The issues we had resulted in a discussion about whether we to simply try to explain it better and make the rules clearer with examples or if we should change the mechanics for those situations. Ultimately we have to decide do the rules still meet the requirements for our game.

In one aspect for miniature gamers it should be fairly initiative and easy to transition too. After doing it a few times it is easy to get the hang of it. However do we hurt ourselves by simply accepting that instead of finding a new solution. The end result was us testing a new mechanic to simplify things and streamline them a bit more.

We have been trying to stay away from custom dice but this made us revisit a design we had tabled early on. Taking a page from XWing and are utilizing 2 different sets of dice, we created Red d10 for attack dice and Blue d10 for defense dice. This does mean we have to change some of the attributes.

For an example we'll say the following players had two characters with the following attributes:
Player A - Ranged: 4, Physical: 5
Player B - Ranged: 5, Physical: 2

The active Player A is shooting at Player B, so he would be rolling 4d10 attack dice. The reactive Player B can choose to dodge with 2d10 blue defense dice (physical trait) or attack with 2d10 red attack dice (ranged / 2). He chooses to also use attack dice. Modifiers now operate a bit differently, instead of modifiers changing the 'target to hit' it could subtract or add dice to their base dice pool. So if Player A was in optimum range, he might be rolling 5d10 instead. For the example though we'll assume no modifiers are applied.

Player A rolled 1 shield, 1 energized, 2 hits
Player B rolled 1 shield, 1 energized

Immediately there is no checking to hit or having to figure out which success is higher than another. It is immediate to see 2 successful hits. This does change mechanics a bit. For example Player B has a psionic ability, "Premonition" which previously would let him reroll a failed roll. In this aspect we modified it to utilize the "energized" dice facing, which he can use to change the results of one of the hits to something else. He couldn't utilize it to change a critical hit though.

We still haven't decided if we'll be switching to that. There are pro's and con's by doing it. It however does provide other ways to apply mechanics like how to do something 'else' with Psionics without it simply being a buff/debuff or an attack power. Trying to find the right balance of dice, what is on each facing will also be a new thing for us.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I believe it has meaning, I do not like systems that spiral out of control, for example in 40k each action usually is a single dice or two, but the units performing the action can be 30 models spiraling out of control.

I much prefer to have limits on what happens, should the design break such limits? maybe if there is a good excuse, but setting limits really helps.

If you want to say 'this is the limit, except when there's a reason it isn't the limit' then you haven't got a limit, you've just got a vague rule and an acknowledgement that other factors are also important. Which is what I'm saying.

And the issue with 40K has already been addressed - the problem is that large buckets of dice are needed very often, and often for rolls that are quite meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. The designer should have an idea of what makes a good game, and how their game should play. If the concept is buckets of dice, fine, but that's not something I find desirable. I want smaller, more meaningful die rolls, where randomness actually matters.

It isn't 'buckets of dice' or 'minimal dice in every roll'. It's 'increasing the dice rolled increases the time to actually resolve an action, but they can be fun and give a feeling of importance to a roll, and as such design can use increasing dice numbers to good effect, but you should be wary about needing lots of dice too often'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Popular doesn't equal good.

McDonald's is very popular. Not particularly good, though.

Sure, but when sales tell such a massive lesson, maybe people need to start realising that there is a lot more going on that whatever is trendy in 'good' game design right now. In McDonald's case the hamburger isn't good, but they still sell because branding, convenience, price, speed and loads of other things also matter.

GW and their games are the same. I've played 40k since 2nd ed and it's never been a good system, the problems change from edition to edition, but there has always been a lot of them. And yet the player base for 40K dwarfs other games. It's easy to dismiss that, but it's far more interesting and far more useful to talk about why. And from there it's even easier to dismiss it as people following the best sales techniques, and maybe even use the term 'sheeple'. But that doesn't explain it, because GW has made great games (Bloodbowl, Epic) and they never established player bases like 40K.

This shouldn't lead to a conclusion that the game system doesn't matter. But it should hopefully help people put game design in to its proper context, that it isn't the only thing, or even the most important thing in people's gaming experience.

The reasons for somethings success are many varied and complicated, any success story taken in isolation feels weird, GW and 40k is not were it is simply because people love it so much and its current falling status is not because people simply abandon it now (?).

A short brief on GWs success is that they had the only sci fi product in the market for a long time and their competitors died by themselves either because of bad luck like target/ heardbreaker or incompetence like I-kor, whoever made Vor , white wolf aberrant, DP9, red R ectr. a company that is unchallenged for more than a decade has an advantage nobody else will ever has, their relative decline now is because of the competition and their slow decline is part because their customers are heavily invested through the decades in them, people not trusting new companies after the Rackham fiasco and of course the fluff of 40k that despite the horrendous mishandling it is still exciting for many people.

Rules were never their strong point and I never heard somebody playing 40k or fantasy for the rules and balance of the game, does this prove a strong theme and models will sell a game regardless of the rules system incompetence? I don't think so GW's case was unique and when they were competing with warzone GWs design studio had an unprecedented effort to fix 2nd edition with numerous errata, FAQ game changing rules alterations, apologies and even a free codex space marines in the white dwarf to make them playable.

On the limits, I did not mean that "hey this are the design limits and these are the cases we break them" I mean these ARE the design limits and if something breaks them its a unique case that makes it even more special.

Perhaps this success =/= Sales is good for another thread, but I can't resist it!

There are five retail motivators that is the root of why people buy:

1. Save Money
2. Save Time
3. Convenience
4. Status
5. Security

The more you appeal to, the better your sales.

GW provides 3, 4, and 5 respectively and possibly 2 with their store set-up and popularity alone compared to other games. You could easily argue that these motivators have been eroded, but they were a big factor of their rise.

Indy Games really only provide 4 and possibly 2.

I would say most other games companies have the benefit of 1,2,and 3.(Most Internet stores are as good if not better than GW plc online store.)
Apologies if this is not what you meant.

With 1 being a big factor in people turning away from 40k, A.O.S.

GW also had the benefit of being one of the first big fantasy and sci-fi wargame companies. Much like D&D, an early flawed entry is better than nothing! Also, GW has always relied on setting and miniatures to push a fairly mediocre rules set. Much like McDonald's, the consistency of the product across locations is a big strength. Now faced with increased niche competition, GW seems to be struggling.

But all of this is business analysis, not game design, and the two shouldn't be conflated.

Agree. That should be a different thread in Dakka discussions.

In reading a few osprey Rulesets, I have come across something called an Average Dice? it is a d6 with the 1 and 6 removed and replaced with a 2 and a 5 I believe.

Has anyone ever used this dice before? If so, how and why was it used in the game.

"Average Die" suggests 2-3-3-4-4-5, not 2-2-3-4-5-5.

The Average Die is 2-3-3-4-4-5 as stated by JohnHwangDD.

Pairs of average dice were used in WRG Ancients to roll morale tests for regular as opposed to irregular troops. You counted one die as plus and the other as minus. This gave regulars a steadier and more predictable performance compared to the +1d6 -1d6 of irregulars.

I can't remember if they were also used for rolling combat. I can check tonight if you're particularly interested.

Some other games have used them, including WRG's Renaissance rules that are based on the Ancients rules.

I have seen them referenced now in Honours of War and A World Aflame.

Interesting as that pushes the scale to something more like rolling 2d6, but over a compressed range.

Yeah. It is almost like rolling edge dice: -,-,0,0,+,+ or =,-,0,0,+,#.

 jmurph wrote:
But all of this is business analysis, not game design, and the two shouldn't be conflated.

Definitely. The point wasn’t to open a debate on the reasons for GW’s successes and failings, but to put game design in a better context than ‘sometimes crap sells’, like the McDonald’s analogy seemed to argue. Even if a game design isn’t great, there’s lots else going on that makes people buy and enjoy games.

Anyhow, because I can’t help myself, GW’s success came because their model of a monthly in-house magazine and branded stores was the best retail model in the pre-internet wargaming world. But once the internet came and companies could show their games and minis to anyone interested for close to nothing, then the high cost GW model became a very bad system.

I think of game design as a commercial venture as much as anything. I think it's important to consider whether a particular feature of any game is a benefit to the consumer.

Back to the "averaged die", I found, just for fun, this schema for a d20:

1 face showing "1"
2 faces showing "2"
3 faces showing "3"
4 faces showing "4"
4 faces showing "5"
3 faces showing "6"
2 faces showing "7"
1 face showing "8"

that, is, more graphically:

1
22
333
4444
4444
333
22
1

this would be the choice to go when you feel that the d6' outcomes universe of just 4 results is too limited for your game model, and you would benefit from improving them to as much as 8, at the price of having a dice type that may be unfamiliar to some players and harder to manufacture.

But this is just a mental excercise, as with the classical 2d6 you would have even more averaged outcomes with two very obvious kind of dice