"Who makes the 'critical' roll" Topic

Hi there

I had this discussion with a friend.

Many rules have a process where there is a roll for the 'front' part of a conflict mechanism and another for the 'end'.

Maybe for skirmish games or vehicles this will be a 'to-hit' roll and a 'save or wounds' roll. For games with units it might be a computation of casualties or damage at the front and a morale test at the end.

Let's call the end bit the 'critical' roll.

Almost all rules have the front bit rolled by the owner of the attacking troops, but many flip to have the other player make the critical roll.

Now the conversation with my friend was that some players (knowingly or otherwise) prefer not to be the defender and watch as their bad luck compounds as they fail critical rolls.

Do you have a preference, is their any objective reason to choose one over the other?

Regards

David F Brown

The 2 step roll system (I roll to hit/damage, you roll to save) is there to make both players feel involved in the process (in my humble opinion). I prefer one roll since it speeds up the game. He'll get his chance to roll some dice.

I favor the two-part system as long as both players are involved, i.e. attacker does first part and defender does second part. More rolls means luck spike smooth out some.

Besides, when you lose you can always blame it on the other side rolling hotter than they "should have".

It is also a way to work odds with a D6.

I only like it if players share the dice rolling.

Stryderg is quite right in his opinion. If we work from the assumption that the dice are impartial, then just who rolls what is immaterial. But the back-and-forth of rolling to hit – save – wound / critical is important to the task of keeping both players immersed in the narrative.

Systems that cause one player to just 'sit and take it' exclude the defender / non-acting player from the process, which is unpleasant, and often frustrating in an 'Igo-Ugo' turn structure. If the structure employs shorter waiting times for the attacker/defender roles to switch, then it is less of an issue. (Each player activates units alternately, for example.)

It's also good for the flow of a game for things to happen in a way that makes sense to the flow of the narrative. So, roll to hit (shot is fired) roll to defend (the missile arrives) roll for effect (what did the missile do?)

With this flow, it makes sense that the things the missile is doing (heading for target and damaging target) are rolled by the attacker, while defensive measures are in the hands of the defender.

Rolling dice does not make you involved. Making decisions makes you involved.

in·volved
inˈvälvd/
adjective
1. connected or concerned with someone or something, typically on an emotional or personal level.

Rolling dice make you involved as there is an emotional attachment to the results of the roll.

Rolls for figures should be made by players controlling those figures. Also, apply modifiers related to those figures to the relevant roll.

If you have a typical shoot/save roll, the shoot roll should be made by the shooting player, and any modifiers regarding the shooting *figure* applied to that roll. The save roll should be made by the defending player, and any modifiers regarding that figure should be applied on that roll.

E.g. range modifiers or weapon modifiers, or modifiers related to the status of the shooting figure should be applied to the shooting roll. Modifiers w.r.t. cover, the status of the target figure, should be applied to the save roll. Thus, a figure in cover should have a bonus for the save roll, not cause a penalty on the shooting roll.

If you design your games like this, players can roll their dice independently, without the need for cross-checking what the other figure has done/what the status is/etc…
Makes for faster and more fun procedures.

Rolling dice definitely gets you involved. The two roll process works well for that reason, both parties are involved at every step.

Dynamic has it. In many cases whoever is nearest rolls the die. It's random if it made a difference it would be cheating. Involvement is about planning and decision making. Random bits are just that random. Nothing worse than an idiot taking time and throwing dice to hard rather than playing the game. And don't even get me started on buckets of dice. 10 000 to one chances have no place in a sensible game.

It's random if it made a difference it would be cheating.

Don't underestimate the psychology of rolling the dice or drawing the card yourself. One feels more in control when you handle the devices yourself.

A game is more than a mathematical engine. A game also has an emotional, tactile, suspense, … component. Rolling the dice is part of that.

In a well-designed game, the underlying engine, the decision-making, the emotional involvement, the aesthetics, the procedures, all blend in a coherent whole.

In games that use "hit / save" type of mechanics, we've always felt its more appropriate to hand the dice over to the other player.

If its "roll and try to beat an armour value" then the attacker rolls those.

+1 Macross Marin and Phil Dutre, well put.

Some additional considerations:

In games where players "own" their units, I usually prefer that the player suffering the damage perform the randomization mechanism to determine what it is, especially in cases where the results might be hidden from outside observers. For instance, in my naval games, I tell my players to roll hit results secretly and announce only the visible consequences – fires, explosions, slowing, stopping, sinking, etc. Not only does this produce a fun fog of war by keeping players (un)informed at a level appropriate with their fictional aeries, it also efficiently distributes the work of tracking unique ship characteristics (esp. as degraded by damage effects), as each player only has to track his own stuff, not all the stuff on the table.

By contrast: I also prefer the same approach in dogfight games, but the group I play CY6 with most often adjudicates all damage results in the open. I don't complain about it because this has the positive effect of keeping everyone engaged in the shooting process. It also fits with a central conceit of the game system – players are not individual fighter pilots, they are squadron or wing or mission commanders with a lot of planes to control in a chaotic melee. Players don't really represent individual pilots, and the game does almost nothing to simulate the seat-of-the-pants point of view form the cockpit.

In some games, the units on the table don't "belong" to any one player as such, the players are more like the ADCs mechanically executing the results of play events based on the interactions of units and personalities built into the game, and any player can execute any action (at least for his own side). In these types of games I would expect to distribute actions around the table as evenly as possible, to keep everyone as involved as possible. I observe that game systems based on this philosophical foundation still tend to break down in play to "my" units and "your" units, because that's how players are used to operating, but that isn't a given.

- Ix

Phil D said

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't underestimate the psychology of rolling the dice or drawing the card yourself. One feels more in control when you handle the devices yourself.

A game is more than a mathematical engine. A game also has an emotional, tactile, suspense, … component. Rolling the dice is part of that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This was the essence of the conversation that prompted the original post – the psychology of it.

Having said that, there is some interesting technical arguments in the thread, like ease of computation and correcting omissions.

Thanks for all the comments.

David F Brown

I let others roll their own dice, if they are quick about it. Sometimes I just roll it for them, or let them roll it for me. Depends on how often dice are rolled.

If somebody gets irked because of the throwers "luck" (mine or theirs) I just tell them their telekinetic control of dice doesn't require physical contact with said dice, if the result is screwy it's still their own damn fault!

Nothing irks me more than some bozo ritual like blowing on dice, or maybe inciting a pretty girl to toss them for them while I am waiting on them. Some games move slow enough as it is. Save that sort silliness for the casino. I have been known to not let one guy roll at all because he was so irritating with his long winded dice ritual appealing to gods, demons, girls only to throw the dice off the table and under a desk…

> Rolling dice definitely gets you involved. The two roll process works well for that reason, both parties are involved at every step.

THE MOST boring game I ever played in I was rolling dice over and over and over again, saving throws against my opponent's attack rolls, I missed one command roll and so was not able to do anything while he made 5 in a row before I got to try again (my "favorite" game for those who have heard me rant before). If anyone were to tell me face to face that rolling dice is being involved I would laugh in theirs.

Mick,
Definitely a switch off. It says little for a game if you have time to worry about a neccessary but not daominat dice role. You should be thinking where the next move is. losses, were to be expected in any combat. If one role is so critical then the whole game is ulimately flawed and so by definition boring. I have played a number of "wargames" where the dominat term is random. They to me were pointless and excruciatingly booring. The random element dominated to an absurd event. Definitely a necessary evil and DEFINITELY not a cause for being involved, motivated or intersted in a game.

If there were a way to make the game go faster, maybe linked dice, I don't need to roll saves. You roll/I roll and sometimes you roll/you roll/I roll/both roll (hit, wound, save, special re-rolls) REALLY bore me.

That said, our (those who don't find it involving) experience is very different from what seems the vast majority of players I see who are desperate to 'roll their own fate' as much as possible.

Unlike the others of similar opinion, I hold no malice.

Doug

Edit: Lest the above not be obvious, a point of different strokes.

I don't see any malice in any post including mine. Truly different strokes.

The person that benefits from the successful roll gets to roll the die.

Example: Attacker rolls attack dice.
Defender rolls saves.
defender makes morale checks for those affected units.

There was an interesting article by Larry Brom about the dice beeing the part of the wargame that is the nearest to real combat. That is why in some of his rules you roll stand against stand, to make die rolling longer. And it really works by creating suspense.
(And sorry i couldnt finde the article again.)

Remind me to stay away from rules written by Larry Brom…

Dice rolls are there to randomize things, nothing more and nothing less.

Some people don't like dice. Others don't like cards, or rulers, or written orders, or igo-ugo turn sequences, or status markers, or pipe cleaners, or figure removal, or point systems, or army lists, or grids, or random events, …

Luckily we all like toy soldiers. Don't we?

Luckily we all like toy soldiers. Don't we?

Hopefully. That's why we post here…I think.

Rolls for figures should be made by players controlling those figures.

QILS has opposed die rolls (no hit/dodge/wound/save sequences). Since the relative attack and defense strength are encoded on the dice, the different players are rolling different dice for different units.

My response was simply a comment on the statement
That dice rolling engages players. That you considered this other than an the opinion is you problem not mine.