"Pre Rolled dice" Topic

We all complain that we are great generals, its just the dice let us down!!

Would you play a game where the results of each random result had been pregenerated to come up in a set order BUT THIS ORDER UNKNOWN until the player needed it, and that list containing an exact balance of results (a computer would be great for this, as it could just regenereate the list as needed).

A long enough list will appear random, but obviously as you work through it, certain results will become less likely, but if you don't know how long the list is then you cant rely on the next result. A computer could easily change the length of the list at each regen.

An complication is that each player has a seperate list that is identical, and an umpire adjudicates each action only revealing if successful or not. So each player is getting the SAME rolls. The lists would likely get used at different rates as players try different things- eg a archer unit shoots at a foot unit. The archer unit use up 10 numbers, is told 3 hits. The target unit uses up three on saves. Already the lists are out of sync (this is why one each)

I realise it would be a slower game, but as a game would you reject the concept?

Heck no. I've played plenty of games where the computer "rolled" all the dice and actually prefer it to the "Assault on Chessex Hill"

How about a wargamer's 'magic 8-ball'?

~OD

It doesn't solve the problem getting the bad rolls at the worst possible time.

Example, in DBA you could roll above average overall, but if your PIP rolls were well below average you're still in trouble.

Or in Warmaster where your other 200 die rolls might be above average, but 2 or 3 critical command rolls going bad could easily lose you the battle.

like cuban cigars and taquitos or 'doobies'…I suppose each has it's 'pros and cons'..

*slish…slish*

People who habitually complain about their die-rolling are whiners, fools and incompetents.

I see no reason to encourage – nay, embolden – them in their delusions.

I was going to put a smiley face in there, but, when I think about it, someone who believes that small plastic polyhedrons are out to get him really deserves a dose of reality!

Dice!?!? We don't need no stink'n dice!

Player: I want to fire my M-1 at that advancing squad
GM: I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 20
Player: 7!
GM: Oh, I'm sorry, your rounds strike harmlessly into the pavement.

I don't really see need for something like this as exceptionally bad or good luck usually makes fun games. :)

However, you said this would slow down the game.
Couldn't list like this, at least if the list is smartly done and there would otherwise be a lot of dice to read, actually make reading results easier?

A list?
But then you wouldn't be able to shake the dice while mumbling incatations to induce good luck, roll the dice as far as possible (as that produces better results) and then perform the the victory jig of happyness or the table thumping dance of despair.

No I don't really do that. Well maybe the first two.

Neat idea, but doesn't appeal to me. There's something about desperately shaking those bones while you look at life or death for your side in a desperate situation.

People who habitually complain about their die-rolling are whiners, fools and incompetents.

I see no reason to encourage – nay, embolden – them in their delusions.

"Just because you are not Paranoid, it does not mean that there aren't people out there plotting against you!"

Amen Brother pphalen.

"An complication is that each player has a seperate list that is identical"

But what if he uses his roll when a high roll is good, and I use the same number when a low roll is good?

Why have randomness at all? It is perfectly possible to design deterministic wargames, and a simulation without a chance element is no worse than one with a perfectly symetrical chance element.

Lentulus
From what I've read luck plays a huge part in war. I can't give you quotes for the numerous sources saying more or less that, but everyone has heard of Napoleon's remark about wanting lucky generals.

I have played several wargame rules sets where there was no luck element and did not find them as enjoyable or as "realistic" as I would like. While they worked as games I felt they lost the element of friction which Clausowitz talks about. On the other hand I have played games where the luck element doninated things so much that I felt it detracted from player skill.

What I look for is a set of rules which prevents certainties.
It then comes down to a players expectations of what the consequences of failure are.
For example If cavalry charged infantry in the flank or rear there should be a chance that the infantry are not swept away. However I would not be happy if the cavalry routed as a result of the infantry surviving.

" luck plays a huge part in war."

I agree with you, and personally really enjoy Brlitzkieg Commander, which really shoves your face in it when the dice are against you.

But trying to produce randomeness that will appear "fair" to a human, which appears to be the original poster's intent, is hopeless. People do not percieve randomness well.

Yes Blitzkrieg Commander is one of my favourite WWII rule sets.
I also agree with you about people's perceptions. They remember all the bad dice rolls when they have lost a game and forget the good rolls they had during the game, declaring they had bad luck.
Personally I like the ups and downs of fortune as they make for an exciting game. Unless I have too many downs in which case I complain about my bad luck.

In BKC I don't blame the dice, I blame the command stand. I have one German officer from my last game that I think I will pry off the stand and glue on to a mine clearing unit.

People in my club will change dice if I or Chris touch them. I keep threatening to keep stats on my dice rolling, 1 list for need low and another for need high. It has been suggested my dice rolling is perfectly average, just the worng way round!

But what if he uses his roll when a high roll is good, and I use the same number when a low roll is good?
- Lentulus- thats the point YOU'VE HAD THE SAME ROLLS!!

You know, there is a product called the "deck of dice." It is a deck of 36 playing cards, each with a photo of a black and a white die. They 36 possible combinations are present. You will roll snake-eyes one out of every 36 times.

Steffan O' Sullivan reviewed it here: link

Apparently now published by Mayfair, a link to buy it for $4 USD is here:

link

I like the idea that the chances actually are equal. It opens up the game to card counters, which annoys the cr@p out of some (me). Two or more alert commenters above pointed out that you don't really need all your rolls to be lucky; just the important ones.

Excel spreadsheet is an easy dieroll generator if anyone wants to create a list of random number generator. Acutally, you can get your 23 sided die using this method. I've done it a couple of times; not recently. command might be =rand(1,6) for random 1 to 6. If in doubt, look in the help function.

I realise it would be a slower game, but as a game would you reject the concept?

Slower, still random, but without direct personal Karmic influence. Yes, I would certainly reject it.

"a seperate list that is identical"

If I follow my opponent in selecting events, I can bias my results by taking similar actions in the point in the event order when he succeeded, and taking less important actions for those "rolls" where he failed.

Lentulus- I had realised that before posting. The only thing I could come up with is asymmetrical set up. That's why use a third party to check with out either player knowing how close they were (especially if he did all the measuring, or even was the only person who knew the rules).

To be honest, this was a Schrodingers Cat question, more idle curioisty- I'd like to try it, but you would need extra time and someone willing to umpire. I was just destruct testing the idea!