"Should More Rulesets Exclusively Use the D6?" Topic

D6s are "useful for games which use "buckets of dice" mechanics"

Isn't that a chicken or egg situation? Which came first? The buckets of dice or the D6s?

Throwing lots of D6s works well in Aeronef or Full Thrust where it gives a feel for the firing of lots of batteries at once. It works less well in skirmish games where more detail requires a greater range of results.

If a one dice only system was to become "standard" I'd prefer d10's. Gives a better range of control and results while still not being too unweildy.

"Common six-sided dice because they are "cheap" compared to "specialist multi-siders," easy to acquire in large numbers, and useful for games which use "buckets of dice" mechanics."

Cheap? Not if they come in GW boxes they aren't! Seriously if you need dice polyhedral dice can easily be got in bulk at 20p each.

Easy to acquire? Probably more of a perceived problem than an actual problem. i'm not aware of any quota on the numbers of d10s you're allowed to buy in one go!

Bucket loads of dice? If GW used a d10 based system then he'd be saying the same thing about d10s.

Anyway if you use a system using (say) a couple of d10s then the cost of those dice will be far less than 20+d6s required for 40K or whatever.

Cheers,

Martin

I hate buckets of dice but love D6, 'cause it's *the* traditional form of dice. D10 comes in a good second place, but I really don't care for all the rest.

...and then they shoot their own argument in the foot by using various D6-based special dice in their games:

e.g. artillery dice, deviation dice, block dice...

I can get various polyhedrals from any gaming store, but try getting a BloodBowl block die (without bying the whole game) - in fact the entire BloodBowl "living rulebook" is nearly useless beacause it does not define the field size (though you can calculate this from one of the example pictures) nor the distribution of results on the block dice (for this info you need to appeal to someone who owns an actual block die).

Imagine having a game tell you which numbers you need to roll but never specifying the die. That's BB rulebook for you!

I think the whole question is a misleading one. People often get all excited about the number of sides the dice have in a game - I don't think it's important at all in and of itself. What's more important is whether the game is any good or not. It's perfectly possible to write a good game with only D6s, or only D16s. The oft repeated myth that D10s offer some form of increased realism just because they have more sides illustrates a lack of understanding of probability and bell curves. If that were true, then why stop at D10s? Why not just use D100s? Surely, following that "logic", they would be far more accurate.

In the end I think that what's most important is that the designer choose an *appropriate* mechanic to use, whether that's a single D100 roll to resolve a whole battle, or a bucket full of D6 for each broadside.

I would prefer D10 because a D6 has too few different results. Just have a look at former Warhammer versions where You had to roll another D6 under some circumstances to varify the result before. Furthermore IIRC the abilites in WHFB were measured on a scale of 1 to 10 but D6s were used to decide if an action was successfull or not. So they had to invent lots of tricks to use D6s in their game.

Beyond D10s I would like D12s (uhh I'm not talking about Hip Hop here). They're a little bit more uncommon. But You can similate D6s with them or such results like 25%, 75%.

I prefer opposed dice with die shifts over a range of (D2 (Any die,) D3 (D6 with 1-2, 3-4, 5-6,) D4, D5 (D10 treat as D6 to D3,) D6, D8, D10, D12. D20 and %-age Dice have place too. When D 14, D16, D18 become more common then you can fiddle all day with those too. (grin)

What I TRULY hate is (well buckets of dice is close) is having to roll a hit, roll a wound (- you just 'hit'! -) and then rolling to save. Soory if this insults but that just seems pure stupid.

Gracias,

Glenn

I have a preference for the d6 (must be my old school roots showing).

What I trully hate though is games that require a bucket of dice because every roll is on a different type of dice. Pick one and stick to it. I hate having to keep track of when I roll a d8 or is it a d12 now...

D10 also has the advantage of doubling as a D% meaning you've got two spreads of results with one die type. I rarely include D6 in my game designs anymore - they're just too limiting in terms of the spread of results.

I to am a D10 man (Elf)!

Damn a boreing little d6...

%`s and rolling a pair of these hard to find, and very exotic D10`s....yep, that`s for this Elf!

:)

BME

Hi!

To answer the question directly... No.

Type of dice depend on type of game. If you can't afford to buy the dice, you probably don't own the game.

Ray (alias Lava)

First off collecting dice is fun. However, I hate d4 dice. I should cover mine with textured paint and drybrush them grey to use as tank obstacles. :-)

Seriously, I think a designer should first decide the game mechanics and probabilities and then use the best dice or combination of dice for the task.

"The oft repeated myth that D10s offer some form of increased realism just because they have more sides illustrates a lack of understanding of probability and bell curves."

Not realism, but rather range of results. It IS possible to get a bell curve on a single die but only through the use of a table; i.e., 1=result A, 2-3=result B, and so on.

However, if outcomes can be reasonably modeled using nothing but D6s, then I'm all for it (e.g., 2D6, 3D6). On the other hand, interesting results can be obtained by using different dice for different things. And I like that in certain situations, too.

So, IMO, the dice should support the game. Greater range of outcomes, more modifiers = polyhedral dice. Simple results table or comparison = D6. Various effects with different probabilities = various polyhedral dice. Just make sure that whatever is used, it facilitates play and produces the results that the designer was looking for.

d10s as d%. Between and "automatic" and a "no way" you have 98 options to choose from to represent chance of success, and you can fine-tune it 1% at a time.

Has anyone mentioned d2? Only $.01 a piece!

My favoutite has to be the d20 system for Chainmail and now its collectable version, D&D minis. One die, a few modifiers. I can't stand d6s the way they use them for Mordheim, 40K, and Warhammer. Although, I don't mind them for GW's LotR.

The coolest system however, is used in Alternity RPG. Simple and elegant mechanic using a "situation" and a "control" die. Huge range of application evident in a clever design.

I prefer polyhedral dice with which to supplement the d6. When needing to roll numbers higher than 6, the combinations of d6 rolls makes things a bit awkward with some numbers coming up more often than others. Anyone who has ever played Mageknight or Settlers of Catan is well acquainted with the vagaries of trying to roll an eight or a nine with 2d6. I'll give you a hint, the probability for rolling any number on 2d6 isn't 1 out of 11. It only gets worse as you have to try and roll higher numbers. If you aren't rolling in combination for numbers higher than 6, then the d6 is fine. but if you are trying to simulate more exacting probabilities, d6 is terrible.

I made a D6 chart that increases by 3% . For instance to hit one needs a 6 then followed by a 4,5 or 6. This gives a 1 in 12 to hit or an 8% chance rounded. Make a chart using all the combos and its all done with D6 if one wants too.!!!

I'll vote for the d6's cause I met a game designer chick at Gen con who wrote the new system (d6 sonmething or other) and she's really cool...

I designed an Age of Sail game called "Fire As She Bears!" The first edition of the game used eight-sided dice for combat. I received so many complaints, that when designing the 2nd edition, I converted to six-siders.

(groan) It's too early in my morning to be getting this grumpy old man ...well more grumpy. Look I hear this "It's buckets of dice and therefore sucks." argument way to much. Personally it is a matter of taste. I don't like wargames that are the other extreme were there is one die roll or no dice roll at all. How real is that? Besides it is a game people, a simulation, what's the beef?

I play a wide varity of miniature game rules. Some like Warhammer and it's variants use d6s and lots of them. I don't have a problem with it and the mechanic works. Other games I like use d 10's such as Arc of Fire and Brother Against Brother. In fact one could say you roll alot of d10s in BaB. I don't hear folks slamming it as a game system with buckets of dice.

Pirates! another game I enjoy uses a varity of die types and I've even played in games with d 12's and d 20's as the main die type. As Goldwym already said the use of a particular die type should reflect what the particular game mechanics are trying to achieve.

Of course we as wargamers can argue the finer points of any game system to the point that we might all want to take up say Golf. (shudder) With that said I think the comment as to the reason for using d6's in the WD article was dumb. It sounded to me like they needed to come up with a response and instead of just saying we think d6's work best they had to pad the answer. Besides should not Jervis Johnson be the definative source on all things Warhammer?

"First off collecting dice is fun. However, I hate d4 dice. I should cover mine with textured paint and drybrush them grey to use as tank obstacles. :-)"

I agree that dice collecting is enjoyable-- like heroin is enjoyable, but STILL... 8)= Anyway, Goldwyrm, have you tried the rectangular D4's? I gave up on the clunky, ugly, won't roll at all triangular ones the minute I saw the new type. If your game store doesn't have any I'd be glad to send you a few. I use the old ones as caltrops now-- NOBODY chases ME!!

Years ago, I used to play quite a bit of 1st edition Warzone, and much prefered their D20 mechanics over the 40K system (which I also used to play regularly). It was more streamlined in comparison to the buckets o' dice approach.

d10 and d20 are my favorites. d6 are fine.
Piquet mechanics really silly, substituting kind of dice used for die-roll modifications, when all could be mapped into a simple probability table without having to juggle dice.

While I like polyhedral dice of a variety of shapes for their sheer coolness (ok - so I'm a geek - so sue me :-P), I prefer that a game use only one kind of dice. I typically prefer D6s and D10s, especially D10s, but the specific type doesn;t really matter. What I don't like is having to constantly switch from one type to another. This is, by the way, for wargames. For RPGs, it's not as big an issue, and using multiple die types is more acceptable.

Doug

As said previously, if the dice support the mechanic, I'm all for it.

As for die shifts as modifiers, I'm all for that also. One of the glories of GZG's FMA mechanics is the use of multiple types of polyhedral dice to give results based on multiple factors resulting in a single die roll (or, at most 3 or 4 dice). As for not knowing which die to roll at what time, everything in Stargrunt and Dirtside is geared toward the player knowing what dice to use.

I'm particularly fond of xDx mechanics, where a roill you make is a certain number of a certain type - GURPS with its 3D6/low-wins basic mechanic is quite nifty. You have a dice mechanic which bell curves nicely (like most things related to probability tend to do), with outer points of 0.5% size (3 and 18 come up one half percent of the time, each). You roll low, you feel good, you roll high, you feel bad. Easy as pie.

In a game system I'm puttering about with a bit for my own amusement, I'm working off a "rating plus 2D6 vs. rating" system. You might roll 2D6, add your sensor rating, and compare it to your opponents visibility to detect him, for example. This seems to be a decent compromise in terms of freak accidents vs. useful probability. If a defending rating is 7 higher than the attacking rating, odds are 50%+ on the defending side. If it's less, the attacker has advantage, on a sliding scale. I'm considering making to two extremes (snakeeyes and boxcars) always-win or always-lose conditions as well...

-A.

I prefer d6 and d20. I particularly like d20s, because I can use them as a d10 or percentile dice equally well as real d10s. They also roll well.

Let's say that I brought my terrain, my figures, my rules, etc. up to the shop to play. But I forgot my Box O'Dice. KMart is 300 feet away, selling 6 D6 for a buck. The Shop sells D20 at a buck apiece.... This actually happened.

You throw bucketloads of D6 in Warhammer games, you throw bucketloads of D20 in TSATF shooting. One is cheaper, that's about the only difference.

D2's don't roll as far, unless they land on their edges.

d20 for a dollar? You can order polyhedral dice from American Science & Surplus for pennies.

If a game uses a random number generator then the simplest and most common implementation should be sufficient -- the d6.

Use of other dice (d10, etc.)doesn't improve the "quality" of the random numbers generated in any significant way.

On the other hand, I have a collection of dice of many denominations, colors, sizes, and materials, and I love each and every one of them. Except that pesky D100, which takes about 10 minutes to stop rolling.

Ah yes, the D100, silly isn't it? ;-)

d10.better range of numbers.but i'm adaptable.

No one's heard of the Alternity dice mechanic? It's way cool!

As I've got older, and my eyesight has deteriorated, I've developed a strong preference for D6 - they are easy to read!

For more variation try 2D6 (which produces a nice distribution).

I much prefer D20's and D100's (D10 + D10 to make up 100%, you know the drill).

I like rolling a bunch of dice. So for me I don't care if its d6 or what. I just like rolling dice and waiting to see if your troops hold or break.

If you have ever used a 100 sided dice the problem is waiting for it to stop rolling.

I like the humble d6. Wargames are abstract things, and fooling yourself that you can build in relevant detail in a quantifiable or measurable way is really rather sad.

G

I don't really have a preference in one way or another, but as a point of order, a FLGS stocks bags of Chessex dice, including bags that were just d10s, just d6s, just d12s. The price per unit was pretty comparable across the line, so I think the claim that it is harder to acquire or more expensive to aquire non d6 dice is rather ridiculous.

Let's be a little more scientific here...
two D6 (or two of the same die, for that matter) generate a bell curve for results. Just like real warfare, one can, for the most part and all things being equal, count on a "average" result. I prefer two D6 in most rules I develop. The concept of a "save" roll is OK, but in the interest of speed, why have it?

[If you have ever used a 100 sided dice the problem is waiting for it to stop rolling.]

I must have a "good" d100 - never had a problem with long rolling times...

I don't really care what die is used as long as it's fixed multiples of that die. 3d6, 4d10, 2d20, whatever. Throwing more than one helps get that lovely bell curve which I like so much. I enjoy being able to rely on the odds and when you roll a single die, there's an equal chance of getting every result. When you roll multiple dice, there's a larger chance of getting middle of the road results. I like that.

Chris von Fahnestock -- The problem with summing 2D6 is that die roll modifiers (DRMs) which add or subtract from the result have more or less impact depending on the base result.

For example, if I have a base to-hit roll of 7 or greater on 2D6 to get a hit, and a terrain modifier (for example) requires that I add +1 to my to-hit roll, the effect of the terrain has less effect on my ability to hit than if my base to-hit was lower than 7, and the terrain modifier would have more effect than if my base roll is higher than 8.

GuruDave -- How the modifier affects the result depends on how you quantify it. For example, do you look at how many new successes/failures it will generate, do you look at what the new percentage of successes/failures will be, or do you look at what percentage the successes/failures will change by. Depending on the mechanic and the event being modeled, the best way to evaluate the modifier can be different. More importantly, often in wargaming a modifier is used, instead of a second die roll, when the two factors being modeled are actually independent, meaning that no modifier scheme will actually be accurate for a single die roll, and you're limited to choosing which inaccuracy you prefer.

Chris von Fahnestock -- There's a design consideration that mitigates against summing of dice: speed of play. As soon as you add two or more dice, you can no longer process multiple events in parallel. A better way to get a bell curve distribution while allowing parallel processing is to have two successive rolls of one die each.
--Paul