"What do you think of this dice mechanic?" Topic

When I write rules I have a couple rules about dice:

• Use just one die or, if necessary, one type + d6
  
• Make high good or low good, but not mix and match. That way you always know if your roll is likely a success or failure without checking the chart
  
• Keep the number of dice low – I hate seeing beautiful tables littered with dice (and chits – but that's another thread).

So my latest mechanic is this. A stat for the game is called a Factor. Every dice roll in the game works the same way. Roll 2D12 and divide by your factor, ignoring fractions.

Example: Yuor Fire Factor is a 5. You roll 2D12 scoring 13. You scored 2 hits (13/5 = 2.6 = 2). Your opponent has a defensive factor of 8. He rolls 2D12 and scores 10, making one save. One hit was negated, one got through.

Every roll is 2D12 and they are the only dice used in the game.

It does mean, however, lower factors are better.

Feedback, thoughts?

Fewer dice is better.
Same dice each time is great.
Doing math, especially with division and fractions is bad. Very bad.
I don't like saving rolls either.
One shot, one roll, one result.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I like buckets of dice.

Rick

Oh by the way, dice towers or dice trays keep the litter off the table.

‌

Rick

I like the idea as mechanics go, though two things strike me, firstly as already said, it is maths and not everyone wants that work in their games and secondly you have D12's which can give an erratic range of values (1 – 12 obviously), but the mechanic seems to substantially smooth out the variables, I just wondered whether there were easier ways of doing that such as using average dice or a D4 (horrible die) etc.

I agree with Bunkermeister.

Except . . . hmm, no – I agree completely.

I'm not sure I even understand your example. If the defending player's DF was 5, would he have saved both?

Opposed rolls, right? So the possible hit range is 0 to 11, depending on the attacker's factor and the opponent's. But you're also dealing with a bell curve, making the most likely result 1 to 7, or 0 to 6, depending on factors. Interesting. I have a suspicion that this might produce a lot of null results, given the bell curve, meaning you'd have lots of combat rounds where nothing happened. But that's not a mathematical prediction, just a gut feeling.

There's a technique for making this sort of division easier, if not quicker. Have the player count up by the appropriate factor and put up one finger each time he counts up: "Three, six, nine, OK, 12 would be more than 11. I have three fingers up, so the result is three successes." People can count by twos, threes, fours, and fives pretty easily. Most people do OK by sevens, which is really useful because no one can seem to remember how to divide by seven.

If you're looking at this as a mechanic that might be used by younger gamers, though, it's hopeless. My daughter's kindergarten class is doing word problems and working on a lot of advanced math concepts, but the emphasis is on knowing how to solve problems,* not on memorizing things.

*And on being able to explain why you solve a problem that way. You can't get full credit unless you can explain the concept. That's why the U.S. is killing the rest of the world on certain types of questions on standardized math tests. Countries do well on the types of questions that their educational programs emphasize.

I like the following points, e.g. fewer dice are better, and using the same one repeatedly is probably best, though sometimes using different ones does have advantages.

No issues with high, or low. Always generally used lower is better, though now some seem to prefer the reverse.

"I hate seeing beautiful tables littered with dice (and chits".

I definitely agree with that.

Doing math is sometimes a pain, and some aren't very good at it. That said, your system seems pretty simple, especially when dropping fractions.

I'm torn on saving throws. For being shot at with projectiles, I don't think it makes much sense. Probably does work with body armor, or in melees where defensive moves can be made to block blows, so in those cases I'm fine with them.

Perhaps too, if troops are in some sort of cover as well.

It is always the sum of 2D12 so not sure how a D4 or average die would help. Nul results are rare in combat but they do happen…

Saving throws are popular. Games without them seem to rub a lot of gamers the srong way. Plus gamers like rolling dice.

Buckets o dice mean lots of time spent gathering counting and sorting. Takes forever but people prefer dice to charts (I much prefer a GOOD chart to 17D6).

Thanks for your thoughts.

PS I did makea chart that does the divisionfor you but most gamers can divide small 2 digit numbersby 1digit ones I think.

Avoid division and multiplication.

What's wrong with using cards as randomizers? I find them more versatile than dice.

As a mechanic, I think it works fine, you just have to do some careful working out of initial stats. Due to the fact you don't round fractions up or down, I think it will make a difference of a point in the stats insignificant (haven't done the math so I could well be wrong).
I can't see how anyone could have any difficulty dividing a number between 2 and 24 by a single digit. My kids don't, and they are 8 and 10. I mean come on, 17/7, 15/4, I don't know anyone who would have an issue with those, and that's about as tough as I can think of.

Even when capable of doing it, having to do division will slow the game. It's more fun if the results are immediately obvious.

The meachanism seems sound enough. The relationship between factors is going to be the key. And you are going to get some extreme results. A fire factor of 5 can inflict 4 hits on a unit about 10% of the time before saves. Would that destroy a unit? Would higher factor units be able to wear units down fast enough?

You might also consider using the same dice in opposed rolls where both sides add a factor depending on ability and situation. Or add only the difference in factors to the advantaged side. Higher side is the winner and either the difference or the relative difference is used to determine outcome (ie 'won by +7' or 'total at least twice as much as opponent').

The math part isn't bad but as others have mentioned, simple compared dice rolls would be easier, unless you have decided that bell curves are the way you want to go. I prefer the wild variances you get with a single polyhedral. You could also make the same die roll (2d12) minus the model's factor to generate a margin of success, which is compared to the other model's margin of success.
Personally, I have found no amount of thinking, conceptualizing, etc. beats playtesting. Even 15 minutes with a variety of situations will bear fruit.

Division is bad. However, if you say "Your fire factor is 5, so every 5 pips is a hit," people seem to understand that better. They can "count up" more easily than doing division.

I have been play testing with it. It is for an Aeronef game (to be called Skyships!). A few notes:

• Roll to hit, roll to save IS an opposed die roll, just with different terminology.
  
• This lets me make two kinds of modifiers: major by modifying the factor, and minor by modifying the dice roll. So you could have "smokeless powder" gives +2 to the dice for extra visibility which is maybe an extra hit, maybe not. But "Master gunner is Hawkeye" could lower your factor by 1 yielding potentially a lot more hits.
  
• A one point difference in stats is kinda big. If 2D12 is expected to yield 13 on average, for a Factor of 3 that's 4 hits, but for a factor of 4 it's only 3.
  
• This is a quasi naval game so I want damage to be somewhat attritional with chances for critical hits. 4 hits won't sink any warships – though it could sink a civilian craft or smaller merchant ship. A very small cutter will tkae 6-8 hits, the biggest ships in the game take 30 or so.
  
• Saving throws don't "represent" anything. They are just a way to get the math righ and let the defender roll dice. Gamers love to roll dice.

Mental division is not good – I've been working on a naval variant of Neil Thomas's One Hour Wargames which halves hits (rounding fractions up) in adverse conditions, potentially several times. It works far better now I've added a simple table showing halves, quarters and eighths of the possible number of hits…

>It is always the sum of 2D12 so not sure how a D4 or average die would help. Nul results are rare in combat but they do happen.<

Because if your Factors are typical in the example you quote, you will almost likely be ending up with results that may as well have come off a D4.

The factors are generally between 3 and 7 which means you typically score between 0 and 8 hits (if you roll really well). But the odds for 8 hits are very long – with a D4 the odds of 4 hits are the same as for 1. Same for an average die.

The play testing has been limited but nobody has mention division being "slow." Since you stop at the integer it's actually pretty speedy.

This is quite a good idea too:

However, if you say "Your fire factor is 5, so every 5 pips is a hit," people seem to understand that better. They can "count up" more easily than doing division.

You might have to do the math, but my gutfeeling says there might be some discrepancies with lowering or increasing the factor, not resulting in higher or lower expected number of hits.

Reason is you are using a 2d12, which is a triangular distribution. Then you divide the results by an integer, and rounding off. This essentially discretizes your distrbution in bins, and as the factor becomes smaller, you have fewer bins that also tend to shift to the left. Near the peak this might create some weird effects in expected values.

I am not saying it is the case, as I said, you should do the math, but I would not be surprised.

Why d12s? Seems an obscure die choice.

(By the way, in my earlier response, my brain was thinking 2d6, yielding 2-12, hence my numbers. My fault for not telling my brain to pay attention to the number after the d!)

Having to do fractions is bad in my book. I do not have a problem with games that have lots of dice or only a few. I do agree that games that mix when low or high rolls determine success make for confusion. Consistency of game mechanics make for better game play and less need for charts. I dislike a game that has too many charts to follow. The other holy grail of game design are rule mechanics that balance plausibility with game play. Players should be able to understand the game mechanics by turn two or three. YMMV

2d12 with a factor added for the attacker , with a saving throw of 2d12 with a factor added for the defender . if the attacker wins you can either do another roll for number of hits , or use the difference between the 2 rolls .

two things are bad in wargames , math , and just standing there doing nothing as the defender while the attacker makes a huge number of rolls blowing away your fleet/army

not having a saving throw is ok in small skirmish games where turns alternate rapidly .

imho this keeps it simple and involves both players .

disclaimer: i haven't tested it in a game :)
it could take some experimentation with factors to get the results you expect

+1 to Shogun – this seems a very clean way to explain the system.

but most gamers can divide small 2 digit numbersby 1digit ones I think.

In theory, but at 8:30pm at a convention, that ability has long gone by the wayside for many people. Not sure how long you expect your games to last, but I'm used to 6 hours or more, and exhaustion tends to be a factor as you get toward the end.

My games are usually over in 4 hours, and I always make sure to feed people, so exhaustion is not an issue. I hope.

@Kallman: You don't really do fractions. As soon as you ge to the decimal, you stop. So 17/7 is 2 point something, rounded to 2.

Currently doing solo testing to see how ling units last and so on.

Why the D12? There are a number of "random direction' things where I'm using the clock face.

Plus I hope to make a killing selling bags of D12

It;s not just dividing two-digit numbers by a single digit number. There are several steps:

1. First you have to read the d12s, which may be at a wierd angle or otherwise hard to read (is that a 7 or a 1? a 6 or a 9?).
2. Then you add the two numbers together--which although simple, is another mathematical step.
3. Then you do your division, which adds another slight delay as people work out the calculation, to get your number.
4. Finally, you compare your number to your opponent's number by adding or subtracting (and you probably mentally check the math your opponent did as well, so you're doing these steps twice).

This dice mechanic sounds like it would get easier with practice, but it seems a little unwieldy to me.

Isn't bucket of dice similar though? Work out number needed, pick up , say, 20 dice, identify winners, pick them out, clear away losing dice, roll for wounds/saves. ECs way sounds quicker to me.
Or, use less dice and more modifiers/tables, wrg style. Still takes time to cross ref your rolls. I'm really surprised anyone is finding this math tricky or slow.
Disclaimer: I ran casinos for many years, looking at dice and working out out multiples, dividing, and percentages of almost instantly, so my take may be biased!

JezEger, I'm assuming your casinos used conventional 6-siders with pips instead of numerals. I read somewhere that people can read a pair of regular dice more easily than dice with numbers on them--something about seeing the pips as a gestalt rather than having to perform mental arithmatic.

All depends on the situation or application you are using it for.