Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.