greghallam | 30 Sep 2015 9:56 p.m. PST |
People often say they don't like rolling "buckets of dice". But what's the minimum number of dice you would be comfortable rolling in a big battle game, with large sized units? Would you be happy rolling one or two dice for a unit of twenty orcs, for example? My feeling is that people would prefer rolling multiple dice…not necessarily buckets, but just enough to feel that it doesn't all hinge on a single die result Am i right or wrong? |
Ivan DBA | 30 Sep 2015 10:31 p.m. PST |
It's all just probabilities. I'm prefer fewer dice, since it speeds things up. But I happily play several games that use a lot of dice for combat, because they have other features I like. |
Martin Rapier | 30 Sep 2015 11:06 p.m. PST |
One dice is plenty. It depends on the spread of results, possible outcomes and level of unit representation. |
(Phil Dutre) | 30 Sep 2015 11:50 p.m. PST |
I have played games with zero dice or other randomizers that were quite comfortable. |
Mako11 | 01 Oct 2015 12:04 a.m. PST |
|
Doug MSC | 01 Oct 2015 5:41 a.m. PST |
|
Extra Crispy | 01 Oct 2015 6:59 a.m. PST |
|
79thPA | 01 Oct 2015 7:05 a.m. PST |
One four sided die. I don't mind throwing one die, but I generally have another die in my hand so I can "shake" them before I drop one on to the table. |
miniMo | 01 Oct 2015 9:11 a.m. PST |
One. Just use the right sized die for the range of probabilities the game needs. |
IronDuke596 | 01 Oct 2015 9:30 a.m. PST |
|
christot | 01 Oct 2015 9:42 a.m. PST |
Anything between 1 and 100…. |
Great War Ace | 01 Oct 2015 11:59 a.m. PST |
A quick, "roll each combat pairing" system is the way to go. "Buckets of dice" is messy. A single pair of D6s work adequately to obtain granularity, and they rarely roll cocked, or very far away, etc. They are a "controlled substance". :) If the combat system is detailed in a combat results table then there is no reason why rolling for each combat pairing need be slow. The over all results are greatly smoothed out, absolutely NOT relying on one or only a few dice rolls…. |
Sgt Slag | 01 Oct 2015 2:35 p.m. PST |
I like buckets-o-dice. I also enjoy fewer dice, but I don't like overly simplifying things where large units are concerned. I'll play whatever, though. I don't sweat it too much. YMMV. Cheers! |
Early morning writer | 01 Oct 2015 7:04 p.m. PST |
Two d6 or two d10 as percentiles. One die gives too limited a range of probabilities – unless it is d100 but those are hard too read in manageable sizes. And I'm one of those haters of buckets of dice – just too much work with too many dice. The flow of the game should ALWAYS take precedence and counting up lots of dice for one roll is like thick mud. |
etotheipi | 02 Oct 2015 9:23 a.m. PST |
|
Caliban | 02 Oct 2015 10:46 a.m. PST |
Enough for what is needed. I dislike systems where you roll loads of dice, then roll against them several times to figure out which dice to roll, or to get a result that feels insignificant. In other words, too many sets of dice rolls. Big games should be fun, not number crunching or dice crunching exercises – too many large games are slowed down in practice, and it seems that not a lot actually happens. |
MST3Klover | 02 Oct 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
it depends. If I roll 25 dice and get no hits, I might as well roll one die and get no hits. |
Gunfreak | 03 Oct 2015 6:25 a.m. PST |
2D6 is the one true way of doing it. All other ways are herecy and should be punished by being forced to watch Tom Cruise dancing on Oprahs couch on a 48 hour loop. |
Vidgrip | 04 Oct 2015 4:58 p.m. PST |
One and done. I have no objection to buckets of dice, but don't feel the need. |
Last Hussar | 09 Oct 2015 1:08 p.m. PST |
Minimum? 1. I don't see how I can roll any less. |