Editor in Chief Bill | 15 Sep 2015 12:24 p.m. PST |
Writing in Battlegames magazine, David CR Brown said: I freely admit that it is hugely enjoyable to hurl 4,000 dice across the table and pick out the sixes – don't ask me why, it just is, except when you roll none! However, despite what the statistics will tell you (regression to the mean and all that), it isn't a particularly accurate way of resolving combat, as there's no real connection to the period (what's the difference between rolling ten dice for Cretan archers and ten dice for German machine gunners if there's no link to the period) and is also so open to chance. Do you agree? What do you think? |
Rudysnelson | 15 Sep 2015 12:34 p.m. PST |
I have designed bucket of dice games. One set of rules called Hail of Plasmas! , used them to reflect mass combat among space ships. I have used d6 target dice which is my least favorite. The use of d10 proved enjoyable but the most intriguing was the use of different dice types to represent the different species characteristics and intensity of firing weapons. |
JasonAfrika | 15 Sep 2015 12:37 p.m. PST |
So what is Mr.Brown's solution then? I don't get the Cretan archers and German MG argument since they would never be on the same board and their fire power is relative to the period. Also, when would Cretan archers ever get 10 dice to roll? "So open to chance"??? I guess Mr.Brown doesn't think chance is a factor in real life combat. After reading his statement my only thought is…Why game then? lol |
Mako11 | 15 Sep 2015 12:37 p.m. PST |
No. A few are okay. Buckets take away from the visual appeal of the game, and are usually unnecessary. There are lots of other dice options than D6s. |
(Phil Dutre) | 15 Sep 2015 12:38 p.m. PST |
As long as the bucket and the dice are historically accurate, no problem. |
Dynaman8789 | 15 Sep 2015 12:43 p.m. PST |
He is wrong, the manner in which a random factor is calculated has NO bearing as to "connection" to the period being simulated. |
chaos0xomega | 15 Sep 2015 1:03 p.m. PST |
I feel like taken out of context that quote doesn't really give us much to debate. I feel like there is at least a paragraph before, and a paragraph after, possibly more than 1 in either direction, that provide more substance for us to debate over, as well as clarification as to what he means when he discusses "link to the period". |
Bashytubits | 15 Sep 2015 1:06 p.m. PST |
I actually couldn't agree less. Rolling handfulls of dice is lame, ridiculous, a huge time eater and inevitably people roll half of them on the floor. |
McLaddie | 15 Sep 2015 1:15 p.m. PST |
it isn't a particularly accurate way of resolving combat, as there's no real connection to the period (what's the difference between rolling ten dice for Cretan archers and ten dice for German machine gunners if there's no link to the period) and is also so open to chance. I'm not sure how he could possibly know there is no real connection unless the designer tells him what the dice tossing represents. Tossing dozens of D6s could well have a connection between the hit probablilities and 'the period'. Unless you know what the dice throwing was designed to represent [or not], how in the could Dave or anyone else possibly know there is 'no real connection to the period.' It would be nothing but a guess. |
Pictors Studio | 15 Sep 2015 1:18 p.m. PST |
I agree that I like to roll more dice rather than fewer. I'd rather have a unit roll 6 or 10 dice than 1 for its attack. Sometimes it does get absurd but usually it isn't too bad. In Warmaster, for example, the Dragon Ogres, with the spell Close Combat Natiness cast on them, could get an absurd number of dice in close combat. Still, overall it is better, most units rolled only 9-12 dice. |
Billy Goat Wargaming | 15 Sep 2015 1:38 p.m. PST |
More accurate than an opposed D6 roll or a table full of modifiers? I personally like buckets of dice, hence my own blog title. I play Peter Pig games in the main. In PBI shooting an MG42 and rolling a bucket of D6 reflects the amount of ammo expended with each shot. In Hammerin' Iron, the bucket of dice reflects the number of shots needed to actually cause damage to a ship. The BOD principle doesn't suit everyone. That's fine. I'm really not sure what is more accurate as I've never faced an MG42 across a hedgerow. The BOD principle gives me the kind of game I want to play. |
DColtman | 15 Sep 2015 1:57 p.m. PST |
I like the way buckets produce more predictable results, but to me it also seems more appropriate for modelling mass combat (a volley of arrows or the clash of warbands) than it does for individual level things like one stand or one tank shooting at another. While I have not seen the quote in context, the extent to which it is "so open to chance" as a mechanic depends entirely on how the dice results are connected to the range of outcomes. Consider that the opposed d6 mechanic in DBA often spans the full range of outcomes. |
MajorB | 15 Sep 2015 2:56 p.m. PST |
Dice are just random number generators. They have no "connection" to the period. Lots of dice (buckets?) are a better approximation to the normal distribution curve than few dice. |
Maddaz111 | 15 Sep 2015 3:23 p.m. PST |
more dice better? I do not agree.. once you are rolling thirty or so, it is a real chore.. |
Winston Smith | 15 Sep 2015 3:49 p.m. PST |
Buckets O'Dice spread the results more evenly the more you throw. Well, that's the theory at any rate. My little toy soldiers may have a different opinion. |
Fried Flintstone | 15 Sep 2015 4:22 p.m. PST |
I think you are getting great mileage from reading just one article Bill ! |
D6 Junkie | 15 Sep 2015 4:23 p.m. PST |
2-12 is perfect, more than 20 is a chore. Nothing lands as clean as a d6. |
McLaddie | 15 Sep 2015 4:53 p.m. PST |
Dice are just random number generators. They have no "connection" to the period. Well, Dave would agree, but he also implies that the 'random number generators' *should* have some connection, which is why he 'disses' BOD. That is, the dice probablilities portray the 'odds' of something happening in real life. |
coopman | 15 Sep 2015 4:57 p.m. PST |
I am a BOD fan too. There is just something so exciting about rolling a handful of dice and hoping for a huge number of hits…and then usually being so disappointed with the results. |
JSchutt | 15 Sep 2015 5:02 p.m. PST |
As a "Cretan" myself I prefer to think he is advocating creating a "link to the period" by throwing fists full of pottery shards and MG42 shell casings respectively, etched with appropriately randomized results. In truth I have no idea what the excerpt is supposed to be implying. |
Winston Smith | 15 Sep 2015 5:18 p.m. PST |
I even like Buckets O'D20! |
etotheipi | 15 Sep 2015 5:27 p.m. PST |
The relationship between the random factors and the period as opposed to the relationship between the random factors and the mechanism of randomization are different things. Any randomization process … buckets of dice, drawing cards, throwing tiddlywinks … can be replaced by an app on a cell phone. Does doing so change the relationship between the game and history? |
Shagnasty | 15 Sep 2015 6:06 p.m. PST |
No. The fewer dice the better. |
Dynaman8789 | 15 Sep 2015 6:15 p.m. PST |
> but he also implies that the 'random number generators' *should* have some connection, which is why he 'disses' BOD. Which is exactly what I am disagreeing with. How you get a random result has no connection to what is being simulated no matter how the randomization is done. Short of actually trying to shoot or stab someone, which for obvious reasons is not a good idea to write into a set of game rules – well I guess the Romans were OK with it… |
Extra Crispy | 15 Sep 2015 6:27 p.m. PST |
Let's nor reply, precious, tis a silly thread. |
BuckeyeBob | 15 Sep 2015 6:43 p.m. PST |
Having tried a few games that feature the buckets of dice, I have come to the conclusion that I don't like them. Too much trouble counting out the number you need to throw, looking for the 5 or 6's, trying to keep them from knocking over the terrain or getting lost in it (or bunching up at the bottom of the dice tower). But mainly it seems that games that feature BOD also then require "saving rolls" which I absolutely abhor, hate and detest. Give me a couple of Dx's (preferably D10) a chart of modifiers and a results table anytime. Oh, Editor Bill….is David CR Brown the same one that authors the _Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier_ rules? (his 3rd edition recently published). And is this article that you provide snippets from, his rationalization of why his rules are better than other sets? Or is this article just statements of his likes and dislikes? (I have not read the article so am curious why he says the things that he does). (BTW, I do like the BG P-G rules and have the 2nd edition.) |
Meiczyslaw | 15 Sep 2015 8:04 p.m. PST |
Pft. A "particularly accurate way of resolving combat" is to put it on the computer, where you can get 64-bit accuracy. Any game that uses dice will be inaccurate in one form or another. Whether you're rolling one die or many, you're forcing your model into the results curve produced by the dice. |
MajorB | 16 Sep 2015 2:19 a.m. PST |
A "particularly accurate way of resolving combat" is to put it on the computer, where you can get 64-bit accuracy. Having 64 bits may make the computational values more precise but it doesn't make them any more accurate. |
sneakgun | 16 Sep 2015 3:45 a.m. PST |
Doesn't matter if I roll one die or 100; my dice hate me….. |
etotheipi | 16 Sep 2015 5:23 a.m. PST |
6^25 > 2^64 > 6^24 Twenty-some-odd dice is right in line (or perhaps a little low) for a buckets of dice roll. |
thehawk | 16 Sep 2015 7:29 a.m. PST |
I think a general problem with these excerpts is that the author doesn't appear to know how to express his case as a clear statement and then analyse it using critical thinking processes. |
Mute Bystander | 16 Sep 2015 7:30 a.m. PST |
Just say "No" to buckets of dice. |
etotheipi | 16 Sep 2015 10:23 a.m. PST |
It's pronounced "boo-KAY". Speaking of which, are we talking about a Metric bucket (10d10) or an Imperial bucket (120 faces)? |
MajorB | 16 Sep 2015 2:59 p.m. PST |
It's pronounced "boo-KAY". I thought we were talking dice, not flowers!! |
Bashytubits | 16 Sep 2015 4:41 p.m. PST |
It's pronounced "boo-KAY". No it's not, it is enunciated "Buh-Khet" There I fixed that for you. |
Yellow Admiral | 16 Sep 2015 4:52 p.m. PST |
I prefer bell curves and streamlined mechanics, so I can get through a lot more randomized aspects of combat more quickly and concentrate on tactics and maneuvers and other aspects of the military commander's decision cycle. I agree that a larger volume of dice is a nice way to give a "feel" of a larger volume of fire. I don't have any particular bias against BOD, but most games utilizing BOD are unsophisticated and mechanically overburdened (roll to hit, roll for damage, roll to save, roll for location, roll for special hits, roll for morale effect, roll to see if you should roll some more before you roll again – argh!). I'd rather spend my time outthinking my opponents than making and cleaning up messes. Nothing lands as clean as a d6. Excellent point, and one of two reasons why I prefer this style of d4:
- Ix |
etotheipi | 17 Sep 2015 3:31 a.m. PST |
No it's not, it is enunciated "Buh-Khet" Not according to Hyacinth. |
Extra Crispy | 17 Sep 2015 6:49 a.m. PST |
Replace those buckets with a base 6 system using just a few dice! TMP link |