"Challenging engrained beliefs. " Topic

The other day when playing a homebrew game I had players rolling on a D6 damage table.

Unintentionally I had the player suffering the damage rolling to see what damage and a roll of a 6 was the worst outcome, a roll of 1 the best. I had initially had the player doing the damage making the roll hence the high roll being the best result for them, but change the order (but not the table) at the last minute.

This had the players feeling uneasy because they're so used to rolling high for good results, rolling low for bad results..

Does anyone else do this just to throw players off? is it worth making players do things that go against the grain, or is it just better to go with what they feel most comfortable with?

I found it certainly made them take notice more – a good thing for new game? but in the 'feedback' session after they wanted it changed.

Craig.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Changes for the sake of it can seem like a gimmick.
Unless it alters the way the game works, why change it?

Michael.

So it's just a table, not the value of the die?

I don't have a real problem with the concept, though I wouldn't do it without a clear game purpose. For example, I have in some games deliberately created a system where some rolls inherently must be high to be good, whereas others must be low, but I've tried to keep the approach relatively intuitive. (For example, you might need to roll under a target number to achieve a result, but damage is intended to be added up.)

I suppose it really doesn't matter how a table is done, but the question is what advantage it offers in the game, aside from weeding out the advantages of "lucky" (*cough*) dice. Confusion should never be a goal.

Good question. I have pitched many rules to my friends and family, and they always seem to agree that higher should be better. It just feels right to them. Now, I am sure players would adjust over time, but is it important enough to keep in to be worth it? That is the real question. Sometimes it is, most often it isn't.

To broaden the topic to other conventions, things become more complicated. Crossfire, for example, changed a lot of gaming conventions, and very successfully so. I say success in the sense that the game is innovative and works. But it has still been a hard sell for them to a lot of people, and takes time for players to wrap their heads around. I personally would like to see more of this kind of thing, if only to break up the stagnation of "move, hit roll, wound roll, morale" that dominates gaming.

If you REALLY want to throw them off, make then use d12s…

My only beef is, be consistent. I HATE, HATE, HATE games where some times you want low, some times you want high. Pick one – I don't care which – and stick to it!

Some games deliberately have both conventions as they feel it balances out any "odd" dice that some players may like to use.

Robert

What's the point of trying to throw them off? It's a game, not a promotional exam.

I agree with Extra Crispy.

Consistency !

Round edged dice roll high more often.

I agree keep it consistent. Either high or low is good. I hate rules where sometimes you have to roll high and then in other situations you have to roll low.

I suggest that I think where the die result translates directly to the effect (e.g., inches adjusted to a movement, number of casualties from combat or attrition) then it will seem natural whether 6 is good or bad.

When the roll needs translating through a table or equivalent, it is advisable to cater to player expectations. Note that good and bad rolls can be reversed if you switch which player rolls the dice.

Well, just inverting the outcomes range on a die roll isn't exactly breaking the mould of game design, is it?

Nevertheless, wargamers can be change-averse, I grant you that.

Not for Extra Crispy and co, it is common in, say, RFCM rules to require low rolls on a D6 for morale passes, but high rolls for hits and saves. It's quite an easy process to grasp.

When designing games, however, my personal preference is to keep with low/bad-high/good except where the result is numerical (thus: how long do I have to wait for this good thing to happen? 1 = 1 turn … which is super good). If I wish to invert the mechanism I just give it to the other guy to roll.

But I judge games first by subject matter, second by engagement and fascination (innovation being more important than 'fun' of a more superficial variety) and only latterly by results and enjoyment. How, say, dice are used (if dice are used) is not a consideration other than where that impacts on egagement, innovation and results.

Some great feedback, thanks all.
Particularly liked the 'promotional exam' comment.

In this situation I changed it round so the players felt more comfortable with what they were doing. And definately agree you must keep it consistent.

Another vote for the consistency, where possible.

Consistency does not always mean the same thing.

In my rules 6 is often best.

But in some cases, as walking across dangerous ground, 6 is worst.

I think part of the problem around consistency comes in when the target number is based on character stats, for example a generic Ranged Skill number. If you have to roll above it then a lower Ranged Skill is technically better, which can be confusing to players. "Wait so I'm getting BETTER when I upgrade from 3 to 2 Ranged Skill?!".
40k gets around this by doing their semi-ugly Ballistic Skill math where you get the target number as 7 – BS = target, so you can still have a high skill and still need to roll high. On the inverse they have you trying to roll below Leadership.
Definitely an annoying problem to get around. I ended up doing away with extra math and just changed the name of some skills to show that a low value IS better. Like Ranged Miss Chance instead of it being "skill".

Pffff, I was in that game, and it was uncool rolling High to Die! :(

Ben.

Back in the early 1980s when I released a few set of rules, I got a lot of flak because my tables were d10 based and not d6 based. I have always and still prefer d10.

Back then a publisher wanted to put dice in the box version of the rules and pushed me to change to d6 because they were a few cents cheaper than d6.

My latest set of rules 'Distant World battles' and its Space combat counterpart 'hail of Plasmas' both used d10 and d6 table in the playtesting.