"Different dice mechanics = annoying?" Topic

[The usual disclaimer: nothing serious, most likely done before, posted to the wrong board, blah blah blah…]

How much does your enjoyment of a game decrease (assuming there's any to begin with) if said game has two different resolution systems for di(c)e rolls?

eg: In one situation you need to roll greater(or less) than a target number -adjusted by situational modifiers that may make the attempt either a sure-thing or a waste of time, and in another you roll a pool of dice that rates the quality of success(and/or failure) by the number of, say 6s(or 1s) rolled -meaning there's no guarantee of either outcome (though the severity of either is greater than that achieved by the 'better/less-than' option).

I'm thinking that both situations can occur in the same game, but wonder (in a post-it-JFL-to-TMP-way) if having both systems would be confusing and/or bothersome.

My anal, everything-in-its-place hobbit-sense likes the idea of only remembering to 'roll better than X' or 'sixes are good'…but the designer in me (a weak, sensitive, but insistent PITA) seeks to make things 'just so'.

Please TMP, make the sun shine for me…

ps- Connard, John: crossposted just for you.

You didn't cross-post it to the Dice Message Board? For shame!

Allen

That's the recovering Catholic in me: always looking for something to feel guilty about…Freud is happy in his grave (ie: thinking about his mother).

edit: Thanks to John's "back, back, back…" tip, I managed to get it crossposted to the "Dice" forum -and figured I may as well stick it into "FoW" while I was at it, because I just know it would make Connard and John happy.

I LIKE the fact that in Age of Reason, you have to roll high on some dice, and low on others.

It gives hope to those who go through life unable to roll a 1. Or a 6.

It also confounds those who sneak loaded dice into the game.

High or low is -as a co-worker from Iowa would say- the same bleep but a different pile. The difference with the bucket-o'-dice mechanic is that -no matter how many you roll- the outcome isn't a sure thing…in fact, it can have quite a broad range, from "who's your daddy?" to "I've soiled my armor".

Yeah. What SHOULD average out… doesn't. And, that's a Good Thing.

It's less elegant if you have different mechanisms. OTOH, as long as it's not too many different numbers or mechanisms to handle the dice it's not bad. Properly used it can make it interesting.

It's the 'less elegant' part that bothers (part of) me, but the idea of not doing it right just because it isn't as pretty/neat raises the hackles (on the other part of me) as well.

Where, oh where, is Bipolar Bear when I need him?

What does "elegant" have to do with anything?

umm…42?

If I understand your message correctly, it is not about switching from needing a high roll or a low one, but switching mechanism, such as:

* Mechanism #1: Roll a die, add or subtract modifiers due to conditions, and see if you meet the target number or more (or less) to indicate a result.

* Mechanism #2: Determine the number of dice to roll, which may be modified by conditions, roll them, then determine the number of 1s (or 6s) present to indicate a result.

* Mechanism #3: Roll a die, consult a column on a chart, which may be modified left or right a number of columns based on conditions, go down to the row which indicates some other condition to find the result.

If a game had two or three of those different mechanisms, and they were significant in calculation, yes I think I would probably be annoyed at using different mechanisms rather than a single one.

If a game were based on rolling a lot of dice and counting the 6s, but one game aspect, say rolling morale, was a simple die roll with a target number and maybe a few modifiers, well that would not bother me.

Dale

But theriouthly folkth…

It's just a matter of keeping things as simple (and as chart/rule/reference-free) as possible: mostly (if not exclusively) for convention/gameday players who don't have time to read/digest the rules. Having everything be target numbers (high and/or low) or dice pools is simple.

The question is: is a better game (resulting from a mix of systems) enough to balance the hassle?

Or more importantly: …well…just about anything, I suppose…

From Wikipedia:

Elegance is the attribute of being unusually effective and simple.

I like having to roll high for one thing and low for another. Means I'm never tempted to use my rounded dice. <grin> You remember those "high impact" dice from the 70s that eventually became marbles?

Not to add to thread hijacking, but really, what's the deal with the use of "elegant" and gaming? I see it all the time, hear it from friends, but what does it really mean? [In respect to wargaming]

Theron got the 'elegant' thing pretty well.

Working with the least number of bits/effort…intuitive/easily-understood…fits together (within the game) smoothly…

I guess it's like art: damn if I can tell you, but I know when it's good?

Not to add to thread hijacking, but really, what's the deal with the use of "elegant" and gaming? I see it all the time, hear it from friends, but what does it really mean? [In respect to wargaming]

Elegant is not:

When one tank fires at another tank:
1. die roll to 'acquire'
2. die roll to 'hit'
3. die roll to 'pentrate'
4. armour saving throw
5. die roll for damage
6. morale test

Elegant is not:
When one tank fires at another tank:
1. rolling a die then cross-referencing numerous charts modified by a long-list of factors to determine the outcome.

The first is too much effort because of the number of 'sub-routines' that have to be gone through. The second is too much effort because of the amount of reading and cross-referencing to do.

An 'elegant system' would give the same result in fewer and easier steps – IMHO anyway.

Regards

My viewpoint is much the same as Dale's.
The thing I dislike most about dice mechanisms is those that require all sorts of different d6, many of which will only be used occasionally. Rules should ideally use either d6 or d10; both is acceptable, but any rules that require me to have d12, d8, d4 and d3 as well I shall simply reject!

I have to agree with the original post. It is annoying. Not because it's hard to remember – it's not – but because it has no elegance.

Some rule sets, mentioning no names, have totally different mechanisms governing each aspect of their game (one for fire, one for morale, one for melee, etc.) which drives me mad – because of the learning curve and the amount of memory they take. If you only play one kind of game this is not so bad, but if you play different periods or only play a certain period infrequently it's terrible – slowing the game considerably as you look up the different rules, to check the 'general mechanism', at each situation.

In short, I think the best rules have fairly consistant overarching game mechanisms running through them. Complexity does not always make games 'more historically accurate', nor do they add 'kudos' to the author as they, often, just look like a hotch potch of the best bits of other rules thrown together under a new title.

Rule writers – CAN WE HAVE ELEGANCE, PLEASE! PRETTY, PLEASE.

CAN WE HAVE ELEGANCE, PLEASE! PRETTY, PLEASE.

Naaaah. I see no need to be on the cover of Vogue.

Complicated rules mechanisms with a lot of "clever" dice rolling mechanics are no better than the simple and straight forward dice rolling mechanics.

For instance, if you have a buckets of dice game system that gives you an average of 50% chance of causing damage or you have a 1D6 system that also gives you a 50% chance of causing the same amount of damage, would it not be better to simply roll the 1D6 and be done with it?

I'm just sayin'.

John

However, sometimes different systems are appropriate for the situation being modelled.

For example, in WW2 one game mechanic could be used for tank or anti tank shots against armoured targets (roll percentage dice – with a certain chance to hit) while the mechanic for infantry firefights could be opposed dice (roll to see which squad suppresses or disperses the other).

Sometimes "elegance" also has to do with context.

The same table mechanic that was a PITA in Epic 40k was an excellent and smooth-flowing fit to Battlefleet Gothic, as one example, while the "roll under stat" mechanic for non-weapon proficiencies was acceptable as part of the dog's breakfast of 1e and 2e AD&D, it jarred when it was retained as part of 4th edition Gamma World (which otherwise got rid of the mishmash of mechanics).

Elegance
@ 21st regiment and all:
For me, elegance refers to reducing a number of complex considerations into one consistant, pleasing mechanism. Whirlwinds example of tank-to-tank fire illustrates a "non-elegant" solution in that it has all those steps. One of our 'favorite' mechanisms, saving throws, is elegant in terms of simple and consistent. It loses some comeliness at the end of the day for me, when I've considered the effect of a thousand dice. (As in "oh my head hurts").
I agree that elegance is like good harmony – you know it when you experience it.

@ gweirda:
My joy in a ruleset is not affected by having different die mechanisms incorporated in the same game. I primarily play medieval and 18th century games. I can't think of a game I play that doesn't have different mechanisms in the sense I think you mean.
If this is true, then gamers are "voting with their feet," and have no problem with rolling a bunch of D6 against a needed number to hit, rolling a D6 against a number for morale, rolling high to injure a commander, low to pass morale, etc.

I'm annoyed with games that require a large quantity of different dice. In which different troop quality use different dice. I end up needing buckets of d6, d8, d10 and (occasionally) d12.

Other than that, its all good.

If a designer had really thought through the simplicity of his mechanisms, so that there is a good reason for having different approaches for different things that pays off by making the game faster or the rule easier to remember then more power to him.

Most don't. I think that a designer should start with a single mechanism, and try to justify each additional one to himself.

And neat dice mechanisms, in the abstract, are an abomination. The game should be about the miniatures play, not about how nifty the mechanisms are.

"For me, elegance refers to reducing a number of complex considerations into one consistant, pleasing mechanism."

Nicely put.

Allen

We do play a game where the shooting phase is roll high, while the HTH is roll low.

Confusing for a bit, but after two turns, you get the hang of it.

Elegant mechanisms can make a game more beautiful. Beauty is not only to be found in the visual aspects such as terrain and figures, or in the predictive value of a specific ruleset, but also in the flow of the game and how different actions are resolved. Dice rolling procedures are definitely part of that.

E.g. why do many games have different procedures for firing, hth, and morale? In many cases it's because of a lazy designer who can't come up with a unified mechanism or procedure. Granted, Featherstone might have something to do with it as well.

Compare this with some of the mechanisms found in roleplaying games. The famous Basic Roleplaying System (best known incarnation to be found in Call of Cthulhu) has a unified mechanism for deciphering an ancient papyrus scroll, flying an airplane, or shooting someone with a pistol.

For some reason, wargame rules still cling to design principles first laid down in the fifties and sixties.

Personally, I like rules that use a single characteristic for an entire unit (its combat effectiveness, which can decrease over time), and everything else is derived from that. My house rules try to reflect this, but granted, it's not always easy.

I have enjoyed games where you needed a "6" to get a hit. Militiamen rolled a d6. Regulars rolled a d8. Elites rolled a d10 and gods rolled a d12. You never had to remember what you needed to hit, just what dice to roll. As an old D&Der from the 70s, I've collected tons of dice of different sizes and descriptions.

I do understand the use of the term elegant now as it pertains to wargaming. Cheers

"For me, elegance refers to reducing a number of complex considerations into one consistant, pleasing mechanism."

Nicely put.

Allen

That, was my meaning. Elegance has nothing to do with the cover of Vogue – that is 'consumerist glamour', which is something entirely different.

Elegant is not:

When one tank fires at another tank:
1. die roll to 'acquire'
2. die roll to 'hit'
3. die roll to 'pentrate'
4. armour saving throw
5. die roll for damage
6. morale test

Elegant or not it's better than the short bus elegance of roll a '6' and kill a Tiger.

I don't like all roll high or roll low is good in a game. Even though it is less confusing. Have you seen some of the dice out there? I had a guy who had some deformed 10 sided die that was unbalanced so it would roll high more often then not. So he had to use the same die for the roll lows as the high.

Elegant or not it's better than the short bus elegance of roll a '6' and kill a Tiger.

Sure. That is why game design is tricky!

For the high-low/deformed dice thing, just use players' privilege and use the other guy's dice?

Regards

John the OFM please cover your eyes now!

I like elegance.

For me elegance is when you create fun and engagement for the players with just a few strokes of simple game mechanics.

At least one can try…

//CJ

When I heard a rules author describe his opus as "elegant", and in support thereof, mocked TSATF (and those people from the "South" who play it) as a "beer and pretzels game" that used "primitive, opposed D6 Dice rolls" when his rules where from an entirely different period, I decided that "Elegant" in gaming parlance is similar to the Chrysler Cordova being "elegant" because Ricardo Montalban said so on TV (elegant), as opposed to Cheech Marin doing an Impala commercial (NOT elegant).

"Ah, feel the elegance of the "Corinthian Leather" cover*. I like what they have done to Pike and Shot Wargaming" (would the same rules be clumsy and redundant if the cover was naugahide?)