PDA

View Full Version : How important are dice?



Aliquid
2017-09-27, 09:06 PM
Do D&D dice add to the enjoyment of the game for you? I've played games with just sets of d6, and some with a stack of playing cards.
Some of them seemed to have a better system for "chance". But the lack of die variety somehow took away a bit of the fun for me.

oxybe
2017-09-28, 12:43 AM
For me?

The physical aspect of the dice? not important. the variety of dice? not important. GURPS and it's 3d6 bell curve holds a special place in my heart and i'm very much pro-electronic dice rollers, if only to stop dice from accidentally flying everywhere. Truth be told I'm not a big fan of the d20 dice itself being used to adjudicate things.

As for the role (/dadjoke) dice play in the game, that of adding or emulating a source of chance or randomness? Yes it's important, however I do think that rolling dice should only be done when:

A) Should only be done in times of in-game stress, for most other situations I assume competence if trained.

B) You're willing to accept how the result of the roll will impact the narrative.

Fiery Diamond
2017-09-28, 02:31 AM
For me?

The physical aspect of the dice? not important. the variety of dice? not important. GURPS and it's 3d6 bell curve holds a special place in my heart and i'm very much pro-electronic dice rollers, if only to stop dice from accidentally flying everywhere. Truth be told I'm not a big fan of the d20 dice itself being used to adjudicate things.

As for the role (/dadjoke) dice play in the game, that of adding or emulating a source of chance or randomness? Yes it's important, however I do think that rolling dice should only be done when:

A) Should only be done in times of in-game stress, for most other situations I assume competence if trained.

B) You're willing to accept how the result of the roll will impact the narrative.

So what if you're in a situation where A is true and B is not? Short of saying: "freeform everything," what other solutions do you have to offer?

oxybe
2017-09-28, 02:52 AM
So what if you're in a situation where A is true and B is not? Short of saying: "freeform everything," what other solutions do you have to offer?

I dunno if it's my english as a second language thing, but I don't think I fully understand what you're asking.

Going to my two points:

Your character/your players are in a stressful enough situation where you can't just assume innate competence will guarantee to pull you though and are going to use luck or randomization to determine the scenario... but you're unwilling to accept the game adjudicating your success though the dice roll...

I guess my solution would be to play another game since this one obviously doesn't have the results you want.

weckar
2017-09-28, 05:16 AM
There are systems where one can spend 'Luck' or 'effort' to succeed at things, but without dice rolls.


As for dice in general; I like variety. dX systems are great as you only need one type at a time, but which you need can vary depending on power level.

Aneurin
2017-09-28, 05:53 AM
Do D&D dice add to the enjoyment of the game for you? I've played games with just sets of d6, and some with a stack of playing cards.
Some of them seemed to have a better system for "chance". But the lack of die variety somehow took away a bit of the fun for me.

I'm... not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking about the actual, physical dice? Are you asking about the core resolution mechanic (roll + modifier vs. fixed target number)?

For the former... nope. It doesn't make a difference to my fun, not even a little. I mostly play using electronic rollers these days anyway, and don't play D&D either. I don't particularly appreciate having to go out and buy a bunch of different dice types, many of which only see minimal use in play, and don't find any particular fun in having dice of different shapes - rolling them is not really any different, at least to me, than rolling a normal d6, except for the d4 which refuses to roll properly since it's an awkward shape.

As for the D&D-style resolution mechanic? I don't like it at all. Roll + stat vs. fixed target number is a fairly poor resolution mechanic, regardless of what die is used to make the roll. You can quite easily end up with difficulties that one PC can't pass, while another can't fail - especially in D&D which hands out bonuses like they're sweets.


So what if you're in a situation where A is true and B is not? Short of saying: "freeform everything," what other solutions do you have to offer?

If the consequences of the roll aren't meaningful, don't roll. If failure has no consequences (e.g. unlocking your front door on a normal day, under no pressure) there's no point rolling. Trying to open your front door before the angry drunk guy chasing you catches up is totally worth an Open Front Door test, though.

Cluedrew
2017-09-28, 06:38 AM
I enjoy the feel of dice. However I haven't found that having large groups of dice or a variety of dice do much to improve it. I enjoyed many 2d6+stat systems, or even just 1d6 against chart systems so simple dice rolling is fine as well. As for cards, generally not as dramatic, but they work quite well.

Joe the Rat
2017-09-28, 09:13 AM
I like dice.

Let me be more specific: I like rolling dice. The thump and clatter, waiting for numbers to settle, the illusion of taking fate in the palm of your hand and casting your destiny (or at least seeing if you can climb that wall) are one of the little things that I enjoy about gaming. I've seen card systems, but they don't have the same impact. Mind you, a good card mechanic, and the use of cards to better thematically fit a game type is solid. Castle Falkenstein with dice would simply be uncouth. Blended systems are fun as well. Deadlands would not be Deadlands if you weren't drawing a poker hand against dark powers to cast a spell.

As to which dice or mechanic are used... is not so important. I enjoy the various polyhedral systems (D20 based, dice chain (DCC), Die by ability (savage worlds)), and monotype systems (2d6, 3d6 over or under, Fudge, d666, Nd12, 2d10, single d20 (Savage Kingdoms plug), percentiles), doesn't matter. It's just about if the mechanic works for its purpose.

I do have a caveat on pool systems (Storyteller, Shadowrun, L5R and 7th Sea roll-n-keep, WEG d6 to a lesser extent) - I appreciate the mechanics, but there is the risk (nay, tendency) to exceed one's hands' grasp. When rolling a bucket of dice is not hyperbole, there may be an issue.

Electronic rollers are fine, and necessary in different setups (such as my Roll20 game). But given the choice, I'll take lumps of molded plastics.
Not metal - it's murder on your table.

JBPuffin
2017-09-28, 09:29 AM
I need the physical dice. I've tried roll20 before, and it ring hollow. I crave the multicolored polyhedrons' embrace as much as life itself...:amused:

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-28, 09:34 AM
I've never been a fan of diceless systems, and some of the other ideas (cards, etc) can either work, or just come across as "we don't use dice!" gimmick.

NontheistCleric
2017-09-28, 09:37 AM
My regular group is filled with people who regularly lose or misplace things. Especially small things like dice, so we've become comfortable with just using computer-simulated dice. It's just more convenient.

JAL_1138
2017-09-28, 10:15 AM
I collect dice. I enjoy the feel, appearance, and even the sound of physical dice far more than electronic alternatives. I even like filling in the numbers myself and filing down the sprue-marks on Gamescience dice (although that gets real old real fast if I have a bunch of them to work on).

But I don't miss, say, rolling d20s in particular if I'm in a WEG D6, Shadowrun, or other game that doesn't use them. So long as little plastic polyhedrals of some variety--whether it's d6es only, or a huge range of shapes--are involved (and the rules system is enjoyable), it's fine.

Edit: But I can see where you're coming from, I think. I have a bunch of dice with uncommon numbers of sides—d3s, d5s, d7s, d14s, d16s, d24s, d30s, d100s (not percentile—they actually have 100 sides, look like golf balls), and a set of d10s numbered out to 10,000. I keep looking for ways to use them, since so few systems do. It'd be neat to get to actually use the things instead of just have them take up space. I imagine if I quit playing D&D altogether and only played D6 systems, I'd start to really miss rolling my other polyhedrals.

Airk
2017-09-28, 10:42 AM
I've never really understood the dice fixation. I mean, they're pretty to look at and stuff, but I find that I don't really pay a damn bit of attention to that during the game itself. If a game has degenerated to the point where I am looking at my polyhedrals and going "Y'know, that's a really handsome shade of blue" then that game is failure. :P

I'm perfectly fine with alternative randomizers, no randomizers, digital randomizers, or whatever. I don't grasp the irrational prejudices people have around this stuff.

NRSASD
2017-09-28, 11:05 AM
Extremely. I've played many games with dice, without dice, or with only d6's, and yet I find I miss the normal range of D&D dice when I play other games. It's a purely emotional feeling, because I know logically about probability, die imperfections, etc. but it doesn't matter. Even though my group plays online nowadays, we still roll physical dice and use the honor system on die rolling. Maybe it's because D&D has always been a bright spot in otherwise troubled times for me, but yeah, dice are very important. Cards and the like can have better statistical outcomes, but nothing is as satisfying as rolling a natural 20 when all hope seems lost.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-28, 11:07 AM
Depends on what you mean.

My favourite systems are all d%, and I'm planning to make my own homebrew d% at some point, but otherwise I don't have any problem with the type of die used. I just find roll under to run much smoother than roll+mods, and apart from GURPS all roll under systems I've played are d% (although I do own Pendragon, which is d20 roll under). So the system does matter, but the dice used in the system don't.

On the other hand, the presence of a randomising factor is really useful as an arbitrator. It doesn't have to be dice, cards are just as good (and I like using them for initiative), and for other systems other methods can be used. I believe Dread uses a Jenga tower, I like the idea of drawing lots and only replacing them when you run out, and there's other good ones. EDIT: although there's nothing wrong with an entirely freeform game is not bad, and can even be fun, a randomising factor solves some arguments but can also create new ones.

On the other hand, I like dice, and am starting my own collection (but compared to someone like JAL you can see that I only recently started and don't have disposable income, only having a bit over a hundred), so any game I run will use dice even if it uses something else alongside them. I'll happily play in anything else, but if I'm running you can pry my dice from my cold dead fingers.


If the consequences of the roll aren't meaningful, don't roll. If failure has no consequences (e.g. unlocking your front door on a normal day, under no pressure) there's no point rolling. Trying to open your front door before the angry drunk guy chasing you catches up is totally worth an Open Front Door test, though.

One of the things that actually annoys me is when failure means nothing moves forwards. At best the rest of the party tries until somebody succeeds, at worst you're not allowed to try again and nothing else changes. I'm of the belief that whenever dice are rolled outside of combat there should be consequences (and possibly inside of combat, I'm thinking of switch from a standard 'until surrender, fleeing, or death' model from limiting it to one or two rounds of actions and then just ending it). Fail to pick the lock? A guard is coming, act! Critically fail and the guard catches you in the act.

What's annoying is when the GM section does support allowing the roll when failure means nothing happens (one of the few bits of games like Fantasy AGE that I dislike). If you're going to allow them to reroll just let them do it if they fail but give a consequence to failing the roll (you open the safe and get the documents, but guards are now banging on the door or have just opened it).

Aliquid
2017-09-28, 11:18 AM
I'm... not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking about the actual, physical dice? Are you asking about the core resolution mechanic (roll + modifier vs. fixed target number)?The actual physical dice.


Edit: But I can see where you're coming from, I think. I have a bunch of dice with uncommon numbers of sides—d3s, d5s, d7s, d14s, d16s, d24s, d30s, d100s (not percentile—they actually have 100 sides, look like golf balls), and a set of d10s numbered out to 10,000. I keep looking for ways to use them, since so few systems do. It'd be neat to get to actually use the things instead of just have them take up space. I imagine if I quit playing D&D altogether and only played D6 systems, I'd start to really miss rolling my other polyhedrals.Yes, that is where I am coming from :)


Extremely. I've played many games with dice, without dice, or with only d6's, and yet I find I miss the normal range of D&D dice when I play other games. It's a purely emotional feeling, because I know logically about probability, die imperfections, etc. but it doesn't matter.And that's really it.

It is an emotional thing, maybe a nostalgic thing, but not a logical thing. As I mentioned, other systems work better. Rolling 4d6 gives a nice bell curve which provides a better mechanical system than a d20... but when I play those games it feels like something is missing.

Aliquid
2017-09-28, 11:28 AM
I've never really understood the dice fixation. I mean, they're pretty to look at and stuff, but I find that I don't really pay a damn bit of attention to that during the game itself. If a game has degenerated to the point where I am looking at my polyhedrals and going "Y'know, that's a really handsome shade of blue" then that game is failure. :P

I'm perfectly fine with alternative randomizers, no randomizers, digital randomizers, or whatever. I don't grasp the irrational prejudices people have around this stuff.Just curious, but does this mindset apply to other aspects of your life?

For example, if you know someone who decides to redecorate their home. They go to a bunch of effort picking out paint colors and making sure the colors match the area rug and the couch etc... would you roll your eyes and think:
"I certainly wouldn't put that much effort into something like that. I don't spend an inordinate amount of time staring at my walls and pondering what a handsome shade of blue they are, and I certainly don't look back and forth between the rug and the wall and admire how they are coordinated."

Pleh
2017-09-28, 11:28 AM
E-Dice never feel right to me. I use them in a pinch if I forgot the physical ones at home. I have a physical connection to my dice. Like a pitcher in baseball or a quarterback in football, I can feel the throw in my hand and I have a technique to it.

Superstition? Maybe. Probably. But even if it is, I feel like indulging in superstition of the dice is half the fun, even if some part of my brain always remembers it's nonsense.

Potatomade
2017-09-28, 11:32 AM
I think I appreciate dice more in a tradition/cultural sense, especially now that I've started to go full grognard and play older editions. On some level I enjoy the fact that I'm playing the same game and rolling dice just like my forefathers did.

Not that my dad ever played D&D. HeroQuest was more his speed. But it's that kinda idea.

Airk
2017-09-28, 11:45 AM
Just curious, but does this mindset apply to other aspects of your life?

For example, if you know someone who decides to redecorate their home. They go to a bunch of effort picking out paint colors and making sure the colors match the area rug and the couch etc... would you roll your eyes and think:
"I certainly wouldn't put that much effort into something like that. I don't spend an inordinate amount of time staring at my walls and pondering what a handsome shade of blue they are, and I certainly don't look back and forth between the rug and the wall and admire how they are coordinated."

Nope.

Because frankly, the color of your dice isn't going to influence anything, whereas the layout and decoration of your home influences a ton of stuff including your mood and what people think of you when they visit your home.

The way people treat dice is more like "I will die on the hill that only correct way to decorate your house is to hang a picture of a sailing ship over the fireplace."

Another thing that amuses me about dice is that most of the dice enthusiasts don't seem to care about the one actually important thing about dice, namely, fairness.

NRSASD
2017-09-28, 11:54 AM
@Airk: To me at least, fairness isn't the important part. I know it isn't fair, but I love the feel of it. It's a totally logical vs emotional argument.

sktarq
2017-09-28, 12:47 PM
Personally I like dice. I gives me things to fiddle with to blow off energy. It provides some small physical link to the results in the game that engages more senses and that builds immersion....

also lots of the little social moments and quips and the like I enjoy gaming are often linked to dice....the useless encouragements, the wild bouncing die that becomes the basis for a wild comment. The person to person stuff of passing the dice box. . . .

I rather prefer pool or mono-dice systems only because I find I can teach them very quickly in comparison to dx type systems. I personally don't like Non-numeral dice, those ones that have things like shields on one side, a skull on another etc. . . I guess I find those too game specific and also too dice focused. The dice should be an aide not the focus to me.

as for color etc of the dice. . . I have two basic needs and one preference. Need one, they shouldn't be distracting. Neon colors, baby pink in a some cases, noisy dice etc anything that causes people to break their thinking of the game in favor of the dice being odd. Need two, clear results - I shouldn't have to struggle (or even think) to read it, no funny fonts, clear numeric differences (6v9 5v6v8 etc), good contrast between the number and the base (often mixes with numeric differences-so a red number on a dark red and orange mottled base is a dice set I'd stay away from or at least consider high risk) The one preference, thematic consistency. Theme is a somewhat liquid concept. This could be a preference for black and red dice in vampire game or that every player in a DnD game has their own color-which can quickly help with things like initive rolls, easy lending with no losses at the end of the night, that kinda thing.

Aliquid
2017-09-28, 12:55 PM
Nope.

Because frankly, the color of your dice isn't going to influence anything, whereas the layout and decoration of your home influences a ton of stuff including your mood and what people think of you when they visit your home.But having a bag full of multiple sets of interesting dice sitting in front of me during a game does influence my mood. It also influences what other people think of me when they join the gaming table (might not be a positive influence on how they think of me, depending on the person... but an influence none the less)


The way people treat dice is more like "I will die on the hill that only correct way to decorate your house is to hang a picture of a sailing ship over the fireplace."I haven't seen that attitude towards dice... if I ran into die fanatics like that, I would likely find them annoying too. I like *my* dice, I certainly don't care what other people use.


Another thing that amuses me about dice is that most of the dice enthusiasts don't seem to care about the one actually important thing about dice, namely, fairness.I'm not arguing that. Actually that is part of the premise of my original post... even though I know other systems are potentially better and/or more fair, I still miss systems that use a variety of dice. (I realize you are talking about the fairness of an individual die rather than of a system, but the same concept applies)

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-28, 01:05 PM
Another thing that amuses me about dice is that most of the dice enthusiasts don't seem to care about the one actually important thing about dice, namely, fairness.

Eh, I mean I'm more than willing to use whatever dice is near me, with the idea that the unfairness of various dice will even out over the long run (it's like buying beer in a pub).

I prefer dice more likely to be fair, so I try to restrict myself to monocolour dice (which tend to have less irregularities in them due to no mixing of different types of plastic), but I don't have the money to be able to justify GameScience dice or other particularly fair brands. I also don't use patterned dice so that they're easier to read.

I do have some dice that aren't fair, a bunch I don't use for anything other than tracking values, and a set of orange pipped d6s which tend to roll slightly below average or really well and so I'll also mainly use them to track hp.

But in general I don't have the time and money to be overly worried about fairness, when I get one or the other I'm going to be making fairer sets to use in games.

Tinkerer
2017-09-28, 02:09 PM
For every person in my gaming group except for me, VITALLY IMPORTANT. For me I couldn't care less so long as we have some randomizing element. Heck I even let people touch my GM dice... except for the wrath of God (my giant d20).

kivzirrum
2017-09-28, 02:54 PM
It shouldn't matter--simulated dice rolls should do just fine, or a stack of cards or other alternatives. And yet, to my primitive monkey brain, it just isn't the same.

Which is especially bizarre because my first introduction to D&D was the video game Baldur's Gate. So, you know, simulated dice rolls are something I should be used to. I have no explanation for the way I am, it's completely illogical, but I just love my dice.

JeenLeen
2017-09-28, 03:12 PM
I think for me it is less that I like dice than that I dislike electronic means.
It bugs me to have to use a computer, phone, etc. (especially since I don't have or desire a smart phone) to do dice rolls instead of rolling the physical objects. But that's mainly an irrational Luddite tendency I have. My DM prefers his dice roller on his phone for most things and (besides rare times it crashes) it works pretty well.

I have forsaken my irrational preferences for a few systems... well, for Don't Rest Your Head... where I wrote a dice-rolling program since otherwise it was too much work to manage the up to 4 dice pools you use. (Plus it was a play-by-email game, so me and the players were largely playing at work, where having dice isn't really feasible.) I think if I ever really got into Riddle of Steel IRL I would do something similar for its combat system.

So, yeah, I like dice systems. I have never considered using cards or other physical objects that emulate the randomness similar to how dice do, but I could see that working well (and a deck of cards is cheaper than getting a new set of dice, if the last set is lost).

Max_Killjoy
2017-09-28, 03:36 PM
There's nothing "luddite" about not wanting a camera-browser-spy-toaster-phone, it's just a personal preference, and it's no more "irrational" than wanting one.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting physical dice -- for some people, they're part of the experience of gaming.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-28, 04:06 PM
The reason I prefer physical dice is it's easier to eyeball them when running. While electronic dice are effectively as random as physical dice (depending on the exact die) it's a lot easier to roll and erase the screen before I look at them. Otherwise I don't care, I go with the group preference.

Knaight
2017-09-28, 05:01 PM
I like actual, physical dice. Beyond that most of what I care about regarding the dice tends to have to do with probabilistic distributions and how they tie to mechanics, although there are a few mechanics that are fun to interact with on a physical dice level (e.g. exploding dice).

Telwar
2017-09-28, 05:39 PM
I like dice.

Let me be more specific: I like rolling dice.

I agree, with one caveat.

Screw D4s.

D4s are an abomination before all the Outer Planar powers, celestial or fiendish. They don't roll, they're painful both physically and metaphorically, and they can all be put into an incinerator and destroyed as far as I'm concerned. If for some reason you need a 1-4 spread, take a D8 and divide by 2 or a D12 and divide by 3. Nothing is gained by the continuous existence of the D4.

Tinkerer
2017-09-28, 05:44 PM
I agree, with one caveat.

Screw D4s.

D4s are an abomination before all the Outer Planar powers, celestial or fiendish. They don't roll, they're painful both physically and metaphorically, and they can all be put into an incinerator and destroyed as far as I'm concerned. If for some reason you need a 1-4 spread, take a D8 and divide by 2 or a D12 and divide by 3. Nothing is gained by the continuous existence of the D4.

I never minded them until I had a character who regularly had to roll 6-12 of them at a time. 1-2 okay I'm fine with them, 6-12 forget about it.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-28, 06:44 PM
D4's are why you invest in a plastic cup to shake, yahtzee style. Good for when the number of dice gets a bit big to hold comfortably in one hand, or are basically caltrops.

Me? I like physical dice for in-person games and digital dice for online games. Dice are fun to hold, fun to roll, and are a great bit of tactile fun for any young players. (Seriously, is there anything more exciting for a child than getting permission to throw a huge handful of bright plastic things on the table with no consequences?)

I love dice.

I also like more experimental forms of resolution. Cards, points, tokens, dice-poker (as in Dogs in the Vineyard), I want to try something like old Rune casting, though I'm still working out how that would function. Anyways, I find creativity fun!

Knaight
2017-09-28, 07:17 PM
I also like more experimental forms of resolution. Cards, points, tokens, dice-poker (as in Dogs in the Vineyard), I want to try something like old Rune casting, though I'm still working out how that would function. Anyways, I find creativity fun!

While I'm also all for these, it's worth noting that there's still a physicality there a lot of the time. A big pile of half-marbles or poker chips for points is so much more fun than a piece of paper with a number on it.

dps
2017-09-28, 09:29 PM
In general, I prefer rolling physical die to other randomization systems, but I don't much worry about exactly what kind of dice is being used in a game.

Fiery Diamond
2017-09-28, 09:55 PM
I dunno if it's my english as a second language thing, but I don't think I fully understand what you're asking.

Going to my two points:

Your character/your players are in a stressful enough situation where you can't just assume innate competence will guarantee to pull you though and are going to use luck or randomization to determine the scenario... but you're unwilling to accept the game adjudicating your success though the dice roll...

I guess my solution would be to play another game since this one obviously doesn't have the results you want.


If the consequences of the roll aren't meaningful, don't roll. If failure has no consequences (e.g. unlocking your front door on a normal day, under no pressure) there's no point rolling. Trying to open your front door before the angry drunk guy chasing you catches up is totally worth an Open Front Door test, though.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really get the attitude that randomness is god. It's perfectly possible to want to play in a game where most things are decided with some element of randomness (perhaps even just because you like physically rolling dice!) without having it decided entirely based on randomness.

Say you have an in-character stressful situation. You know there are certain results that you, out of character, don't want to include as possibilities while still suspending disbelief and pretending, in-character, that those results ARE possible. Most results are more complicated than a binary success-failure. How would you handle this, assuming you are committed to including randomness in your determination of results and the unwanted results are by default included in the die roll?

This type of situation is actually REALLY common in the way I play TRPGs, which is why I am adamantly opposed to the "fudging dice is evil" standpoint that a lot of people have. My typical solution: roll dice as normal, then if the roll indicates the non-included result, give the next-worse result instead. This is commonly known as "fudging dice," and it's an important tool if you play the game to sometimes include certain results and sometimes not. For example: in a game like D&D, I want there to be a zero% chance of the Heros-with-a-capital-H dying to a bunch of mooks (I mean, unless they do something catastrophically stupid or it would be narratively appropriate like one person staying behind against overwhelming odds so the rest can escape), but still preserve the illusion of that possibility because it makes things more exciting. However, I don't want to eliminate the possibility of death entirely, because there ARE situations where I want it to be possible, like against the Big Bad (or the staying-behind-to-let-others-escape thing).

And if you're the type of person who can't suspend disbelief and enjoy false tension, then I don't want to be playing with you anyway because you're a buzzkill who doesn't fit my playstyle.

And yes, I typically DM.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-28, 10:27 PM
While I'm also all for these, it's worth noting that there's still a physicality there a lot of the time. A big pile of half-marbles or poker chips for points is so much more fun than a piece of paper with a number on it.

Sometimes. I do use tokens for points even digitally, but most of the time that's just for convenience. (I don't have to track character sheets or keep count myself.)

But yes, physicality is nice. I'm just more excited by neato mechanics.

Aneurin
2017-09-29, 04:59 AM
To be perfectly honest, I don't really get the attitude that randomness is god. It's perfectly possible to want to play in a game where most things are decided with some element of randomness (perhaps even just because you like physically rolling dice!) without having it decided entirely based on randomness.

Say you have an in-character stressful situation. You know there are certain results that you, out of character, don't want to include as possibilities while still suspending disbelief and pretending, in-character, that those results ARE possible. Most results are more complicated than a binary success-failure. How would you handle this, assuming you are committed to including randomness in your determination of results and the unwanted results are by default included in the die roll?

This type of situation is actually REALLY common in the way I play TRPGs, which is why I am adamantly opposed to the "fudging dice is evil" standpoint that a lot of people have. My typical solution: roll dice as normal, then if the roll indicates the non-included result, give the next-worse result instead. This is commonly known as "fudging dice," and it's an important tool if you play the game to sometimes include certain results and sometimes not. For example: in a game like D&D, I want there to be a zero% chance of the Heros-with-a-capital-H dying to a bunch of mooks (I mean, unless they do something catastrophically stupid or it would be narratively appropriate like one person staying behind against overwhelming odds so the rest can escape), but still preserve the illusion of that possibility because it makes things more exciting. However, I don't want to eliminate the possibility of death entirely, because there ARE situations where I want it to be possible, like against the Big Bad (or the staying-behind-to-let-others-escape thing).

This is where failing forwards comes in, which is that failure doesn't mean "nope, you failed, you're now screwed" but that "okay, you do what you were trying to, but something went wrong..." In other words, you succeed with consequences.

Let's take that in the context of my door opening example from before:

There's an angry drunk chasing the PC down the road, and the PC is trying to get into their house before they get caught. The PC rolls Unlock Front Door... and fails the test. The GM could of course just say "the drunk catches you", which is a perfectly valid response, or they could say "You unlock the door and get inside, but then you realise you dropped your keys outside..." which, frankly, has rather more tension as you wonder if the drunk is going to spot the keys - or if it's worth opening the door and trying to snag them before the angry drunk gets there.



Otherwise, there's often mechanics built into systems these days that allow the players to ward off horrible deaths. Fate Points, Fortune Points, Fudge Points, Plot Points, RiPP, Willpower... whatever. I'm sure there are lots of names - but they're basically currency for the players to spend to declare "this bad thing doesn't happen", or "this bad thing is not as terrible as it first seems". Or even just re-take the test they flubbed in the hopes of passing this time.

I don't bother fudging rolls or results since I generally don't need to; if there's a roll at all then the outcome adds to the game however it turns out, and the players have tools to prevent something truly catastrophic from happening to them.


And if you're the type of person who can't suspend disbelief and enjoy false tension, then I don't want to be playing with you anyway because you're a buzzkill who doesn't fit my playstyle.

And yes, I typically DM.

That seems a little bit harsh.

Anonymouswizard
2017-09-29, 05:53 AM
Heck, I roll openly these days, it makes people much less nervous then when I use a screen to fudge in their favour. Plus it stops people from claiming I cheated to kill their characters off, as they can see how the dice fell.

JAL_1138
2017-09-29, 10:27 AM
I agree, with one caveat.

Screw D4s.

D4s are an abomination before all the Outer Planar powers, celestial or fiendish. They don't roll, they're painful both physically and metaphorically, and they can all be put into an incinerator and destroyed as far as I'm concerned. If for some reason you need a 1-4 spread, take a D8 and divide by 2 or a D12 and divide by 3. Nothing is gained by the continuous existence of the D4.

If you're not keen on the little triangular pyramids, various companies make 8-sided and 12-sided dice numbered 1-4 multiple times. I know Gamescience makes an 8-sider and Chessex makes a 12-sider, because I have a few of those (GS's 1-4 x2 d8 is shaped differently than their usual d8, and Chessex's 1-4 x3 d12 uses Roman numerals, so you don't confuse them for ordinary d8s and d12s), and I'm sure others do as well. There are also alternative shapes—Crystal Caste makes a d4 shaped like, well, a crystal, with a rectangular center section for the numbers, and TSR's old Dragon Dice game had d4s shaped like wedges, although they had pictures rather than numbers on them.

oxybe
2017-09-30, 04:15 AM
To be perfectly honest, I don't really get the attitude that randomness is god. It's perfectly possible to want to play in a game where most things are decided with some element of randomness (perhaps even just because you like physically rolling dice!) without having it decided entirely based on randomness.

Say you have an in-character stressful situation. You know there are certain results that you, out of character, don't want to include as possibilities while still suspending disbelief and pretending, in-character, that those results ARE possible. Most results are more complicated than a binary success-failure. How would you handle this, assuming you are committed to including randomness in your determination of results and the unwanted results are by default included in the die roll?

No one is stating randomness is god but you.

I'm stating "If I'm going to ask randomness to pick a result for me, it's because it's results I've already approved of"

Are you asking me this as a player or GM? Your argument/position hinges on "you, out of character, don't want to include as possibilities while still suspending disbelief and pretending, in-character, that those results ARE possible" and "How would you handle this, assuming you are committed to including randomness in your determination of results and the unwanted results are by default included in the die roll?"

The first quote is clearly a player thing: they're the ones who suspend disbelief in the world the GM is running and the character himself is not aware of the actual potential results of the die, just that they are trying to do X and they can assume or hazard a guess at Y results.

As a player I only roll when my GM asks me to so that's point moot. I don't get to choose the potential outcomes: I tell the GM I do X and they tell me if I have to roll dice or not as well as the result of my actions. Characters worrying about things that may or may not happen before or after the roll has nothing to do with the die, the action of rolling for success or the possibilities the GM has chosen and is just the act roleplaying.

But as a player since you don't control when the dice are rolled, but rather ask the GM if you can do a task, and I'm kinda amazed I have to state this, but i was talking in reference as a GM. As a player i might not like the results of the dice roll, but i'm not the one calling those shots: the GM is. I always have the option to walk though, should the GM be bad at calling those shots.

The second quote is directed at the GM, and it fails to hold water as your argument is that, for whatever reason, I (as GM) am committed to rolling regardless of my actual feelings on the potential results. My argument is that since the only time I ask someone to roll, and thus commit to it, is when I'm fine with all the results, your argument of unwanted results doesn't enter play: I only commit to rolling when it has the results i agree with are potential outcomes.

Thus I see no reason to fudge the dice since all the outcomes are outcomes I agree with.


This type of situation is actually REALLY common in the way I play TRPGs, which is why I am adamantly opposed to the "fudging dice is evil" standpoint that a lot of people have. My typical solution: roll dice as normal, then if the roll indicates the non-included result, give the next-worse result instead. This is commonly known as "fudging dice," and it's an important tool if you play the game to sometimes include certain results and sometimes not. For example: in a game like D&D, I want there to be a zero% chance of the Heros-with-a-capital-H dying to a bunch of mooks (I mean, unless they do something catastrophically stupid or it would be narratively appropriate like one person staying behind against overwhelming odds so the rest can escape), but still preserve the illusion of that possibility because it makes things more exciting. However, I don't want to eliminate the possibility of death entirely, because there ARE situations where I want it to be possible, like against the Big Bad (or the staying-behind-to-let-others-escape thing).

And I just setup those situations so I don't have to roll an unnessary combat at all. Mooks are a scared and cowardly lot. They don't fight unless they have to and tend to run away from threats (like PCs). They call for much stronger backup and far superior numbers as their skills, alone, cannot match those of the PCs. A stiff breeze knocks mooks down. Anything I would consider a "mook" is probably closer to a skill check on legs in form and function. A mook guard isn't one you're going to spend any significant time trying to engage in a fight, but you'll want to either sneak past him or kill him and his buddy immediately and post-haste before they get to call for an alarm, which would mean fighting a swarm of mooks and everyone is now on high alert. A swarm of mooks, a mob, is a far different beast and is treated like a proper combat encounter with it's own stats as the mooks take formations or dogpile on the PCs who must whittle away this group of faceless schmoes, who are likely buying time for their superiors to join/exit.


And if you're the type of person who can't suspend disbelief and enjoy false tension, then I don't want to be playing with you anyway because you're a buzzkill who doesn't fit my playstyle.

And yes, I typically DM.

I pity your players.

Once the man behind curtain is revealed to be a fraud and all tension he brought an illusion, why should one continue trusting him? There is little pleasure to be had in that tension anymore since it's been shown to be a sham, coming and going as he pulls the levers.

kivzirrum
2017-09-30, 07:57 AM
If you're not keen on the little triangular pyramids, various companies make 8-sided and 12-sided dice numbered 1-4 multiple times. I know Gamescience makes an 8-sider and Chessex makes a 12-sider, because I have a few of those (GS's 1-4 x2 d8 is shaped differently than their usual d8, and Chessex's 1-4 x3 d12 uses Roman numerals, so you don't confuse them for ordinary d8s and d12s), and I'm sure others do as well. There are also alternative shapes—Crystal Caste makes a d4 shaped like, well, a crystal, with a rectangular center section for the numbers, and TSR's old Dragon Dice game had d4s shaped like wedges, although they had pictures rather than numbers on them.

Those Crystal Caste d4s look pretty cool... I may have to pick them up. Typically I've just used d8s and divided by half but if I can get cool looking dice then that may be the way to go! :smallbiggrin:

Aran nu tasar
2017-09-30, 08:36 AM
Screw D4s.

D4s are an abomination before all the Outer Planar powers, celestial or fiendish.

Sure. But if you are attacked during your gaming session by barefoot assailants and have to beat a hasty retreat, will scattering d8s or d12s behind you slow the attackers? Not nearly as much as the caltrop d4s you could leave behind.

With regards to the actual question, there are a number of diceless games (Undying, Soth, Amber Diceless) that all look really interesting. Hell, I've played a game where conflict resolution was handled via competitive haiku writing, and it was awesome. So I don't need dice, although most games that I play use them.

Jormengand
2017-09-30, 08:41 AM
Hell, I've played a game where conflict resolution was handled via competitive haiku writing, and it was awesome.

Assuming for one moment that you're not talking about Cards Against Humanity, what game is this? :smallconfused:

Socratov
2017-09-30, 11:43 AM
I have split this up in the rational and irrational parts of talking dice.

Rational part:

I think that a spread of dice is great: it gives a sense of distinction, almost as if one were part of a secret club that knew the general uselessness of the D12, unless a barbarian, and felt the dread for the Caltrop. it can really bring a system to life.

That said, the distribution of probability is often a problem in games: i.e. how can one make a distribution system which works intuitive, is easy to understand, does not make one roll buckets of dice and is easy to toy with in terms of bonus/malus. But most of all, is statistically sound. that last part means that over the career of the adventurer that the die stays relevant, but investment into skill is rewarded with more certainty. Considering DnD specifically: on the one end of the spectrum you have DnD 3.5 where you can make sure that you never, ever fail a check again (barring nat 1's), on the other you have something like DnD 5e where creating favourable circumstances has a greater effect (i.e. creating advantage/disadvantage for the recipient) has a greater effect over the course of an adventurer's career then gaining bonuses on your roll does.

As for other systems, well, I find that for attacks etc. a single die +modifiers works best: simple, quick and repeatable. for skills or skill challenges I find that a success based systems work best: roll XdY dice, and count the number of results above value Z. The number of successes is how well you do or succeed at a task. Simple to set up for a game master and simple to carry out for a player and most of all: it is very with keeping to verisimilitude: a skill challenge is always a collection of steps to carry out and the rolling of successes tells you how many of those steps you have passed. Each roll is a certain passing of time, yadda-yadda-yadda, easy to use and to build suspense.

Now for the irrational part:

I love rolling dice. Like a poster before me said: the illusion of control while rolling a set of plastic (or other material) platonic solids is fantastic and gives a lot of fun. Before you know it you will have your lucky dice, your unlucky dice (for loaners), hold rituals to cleanse your dice from the touches of others and find the effect of the gambler's paradox. I, along with other people, have seen grown men of science freak out about someone ruining their lucky dice, or 'emptying the amount of natural 20s', despite them being a professor teaching statistics courses. Those are feelings that no app could ever hope to replicate...

Once you own a set of dice (soon to be joined by many other sets of dice) you will be overcome by the romantic notion of control, the delicious delusions of being lucky and the incredible insanity of never owning enough dice.

Fiery Diamond
2017-09-30, 10:01 PM
No one is stating randomness is god but you.

I'm stating "If I'm going to ask randomness to pick a result for me, it's because it's results I've already approved of"

Are you asking me this as a player or GM? Your argument/position hinges on "you, out of character, don't want to include as possibilities while still suspending disbelief and pretending, in-character, that those results ARE possible" and "How would you handle this, assuming you are committed to including randomness in your determination of results and the unwanted results are by default included in the die roll?"

I'm asking this AS A GROUP, not just as players or GM.


The first quote is clearly a player thing: they're the ones who suspend disbelief in the world the GM is running and the character himself is not aware of the actual potential results of the die, just that they are trying to do X and they can assume or hazard a guess at Y results.

As a player I only roll when my GM asks me to so that's point moot. I don't get to choose the potential outcomes: I tell the GM I do X and they tell me if I have to roll dice or not as well as the result of my actions. Characters worrying about things that may or may not happen before or after the roll has nothing to do with the die, the action of rolling for success or the possibilities the GM has chosen and is just the act roleplaying.

Well, some people don't have the GM be the prompter for all die rolls.

But as a player since you don't control when the dice are rolled Already determined this is not always the case, but rather ask the GM if you can do a task, and I'm kinda amazed I have to state this, but i was talking in reference as a GM. As a player i might not like the results of the dice roll, but i'm not the one calling those shots: the GM is. I always have the option to walk though, should the GM be bad at calling those shots.

The second quote is directed at the GM, and it fails to hold water as your argument is that, for whatever reason, I (as GM) am committed to rolling regardless of my actual feelings on the potential results. And that approach is "randomness is god." The dice are a tool, with less worth than the desires of the group. My argument is that since the only time I ask someone to roll, and thus commit to it, is when I'm fine with all the results, your argument of unwanted results doesn't enter play: I only commit to rolling when it has the results i agree with are potential outcomes.

Thus I see no reason to fudge the dice since all the outcomes are outcomes I agree with.

And sometimes NOT ALL outcomes are outcomes I agree with, but I still want to include dice for whatever reason. If this is impossible for you to comprehend, then you need to shut your eyes and stop looking at my posts, because I would probably slap you if we met in real life and argued about it.

And I just setup those situations so I don't have to roll an unnessary combat at all. Mooks are a scared and cowardly lot. They don't fight unless they have to and tend to run away from threats (like PCs). They call for much stronger backup and far superior numbers as their skills, alone, cannot match those of the PCs. A stiff breeze knocks mooks down. Anything I would consider a "mook" is probably closer to a skill check on legs in form and function. A mook guard isn't one you're going to spend any significant time trying to engage in a fight, but you'll want to either sneak past him or kill him and his buddy immediately and post-haste before they get to call for an alarm, which would mean fighting a swarm of mooks and everyone is now on high alert. A swarm of mooks, a mob, is a far different beast and is treated like a proper combat encounter with it's own stats as the mooks take formations or dogpile on the PCs who must whittle away this group of faceless schmoes, who are likely buying time for their superiors to join/exit.



I pity your players.

Once the man behind curtain is revealed to be a fraud and all tension he brought an illusion, why should one continue trusting him? There is little pleasure to be had in that tension anymore since it's been shown to be a sham, coming and going as he pulls the levers.


"The dice dictate regardless of circumstance if we chose to roll dice" = "randomness is god" to me.

Sometimes people want to play out a combat, which means rolling the dice, because they want to roll the dice.
Sometimes people want to play out a combat, which means rolling the dice, because they want to feel awesome.
Sometimes the game rules dictate that there are more possible outcomes than the group actually wants to accept.

If you have problems with any of those three statements, the issue is with you, not with me.

Also, the illusion of tension is not "fraud" any more than the tension in a typical adventure novel or movie is fraudulent - in many genres and types, you know that, for example, the characters aren't going to die. If that knowledge detracts from life-or-death scenes for you, that is YOUR PROBLEM, and makes you a person I'd have zero interest in playing with. Or watching movies with. Or talking about books with.

oxybe
2017-09-30, 10:44 PM
No I'm pretty sure the problem is on you for somehow taking such offense with me to begin with, to the point where you threaten physical violence on me for simply disagreeing with you and providing criticism.

I'm just happy to have another name join the honored halls of my mute list alongside Jedipotter.

Aran nu tasar
2017-10-01, 07:18 AM
Assuming for one moment that you're not talking about Cards Against Humanity, what game is this? :smallconfused:

Grant Howitt's Warrior-Poet. (https://gshowitt.itch.io/warrior-poet) I was wrong, actually, thinking back; there are dice used, since having your haiku's lines be judged the best grants extra dice and the conflict is settled with a roll-off. But the haiku is the important and interesting part.