This came up in the discussion of hpox game in the GDW, but I think it's a bigger topic now...
jwarrend wrote:
But the crux of the matter here, to me, is that you have a fast-paced game that you're trying to simulate. If you have a card in front of you that allows you to take 4 actions, and you have to roll a die for each one, that could potentially bog the game down.
As I read it in hpox' rules, not all actions require a roll.
It's hard to know whether "most" or "not that many" do, and that's an important point.
Also, part of having the roll is that it makes a decision for you. "I would like to do X, and I have a decent chance to succeed. I'll try it *roll*" can be faster than "Gee I dunno, I'd like to do X, but then if I DO then I won't have the resources left to do Y. And if I don't then I can do Y, but later Z will not be available... Let me balance the relative value of the option to do Z later, with the importance of doing Y now... and I have to figure in how X really advances my strategy enough to do it..."
Here you oversimplify things to make it look like your view is the right way to see it. Yet, I could apply similar analysis to your game -- "let's see, I currently have a show that hits on 2,3, 7, and 9. I can add this Modifier which gives me hit numbers 8 and 11 or this one which gives me 6 and 12. So [after doing a ton of math], I can now see that the one with the greater probability of success is [whatever outcome of math was]".
The point is, a die roll doesn't make a decision for you; it gives you a basis on which to make a decision. (or rather, it HAS to in order to be useful from a game design standpoint). Do I want to take this action, given its chances of success are X, or do I take that one given that its chances of success are Y? There could be just as much analysis in that version of a game. That said, I'll agree that my proposed "change" would turn it more into resource management, which is not in the spirit of the design. But, it was just a suggestion of an alternative way of doing things...
That's not intended to be an attack or anything, I just wanted to point out how the mechanic tends to work in a sports game. A lot of real sports are nothing but a collection of statistics anyway- like Baseball. Dice are a perfect way to implement sports dynamics in a board game- there are a lot of variables and you play the numbers. Ask any coach.
Sports are not just a collection of statistics. The interaction between a player's muscles firing to throw a ball, and another's brain processing the sensory information of the ball approaching him, and his brain then directing his muscles to fire according to the response he wants to attempt, is WAY too complicated to model statistically. But, statistics provide a useful way of analyzing things after the fact, and of making pretty reasonable predictions what the average behavior of a system will be. In your free throw example below, I wouldn't say "Shaq has an 8 in 10 chance of making a free throw", just because he's shooting 80% from the line. The reality is that the "chance" of success is not beholden to the past results of Shaq from the line.
That said, I agree dice rolling can work well in sports games because sports are explicable in terms of statistics -- the "better" player will usually have better stats -- and dice can exploit the properties of statistics, which can be fit to the statistics deemed important by the designer to capture the feel of the sport. But that doesn't mean dice are the right way to go for all designs. That doesn't make one foolish for proposing a non-dice solution to a game problem; the key question is what problem that particular mechanic is trying to solve.
Incidentally, while you may not have a problem with dice-rolling, a lot of people do, and a lot of people won't look at a game with a strong luck element. That may not bother you (and it probably shouldn't), but if you want to consider selling your game, considering the tastes of the market is not a ridiculous idea. Of course, that sensibility is probably more common in the "German games" community, which is probably less likely to buy sports games anyway.
A game you might look at for a counter example to your argument is "StreetSoccer", which, as far as I know, has a very "German" game mechanic yet is also a decent simulation of soccer. Dice are a way, but not the only, and not necessarily the best, way to do sports.
Quote:So, I guess my main objection to dice is that when used well, they can be very nice, but often, they are a cop out when a cleaner, more elegant way of producing an effect is available.
I'm not convinced that adding a class of cards is more elegant than rolling dice. I am also not convinced that using dice is a cop out. you're not really a Magic player, but would playing Necro during Black Summer have been a cop out? Is playing Blue in general (up until recently) for countermagic a cop out? In Basketball, is having the tallest guy on the court stand under the basket and passing him the ball a cop out?
Now you're just being argumentative. I can't speak to Magic analogies, having never played the game. It's crucial to note that I said "often, they [dice] are a cop out". It's the first thing that comes to people's mind; why else do you think there are so many "roll and move" games on the market? But are there more interesting ways to produce movement on a game board? For example, Clue is a great game, but the die rolling detracts from the game's overall quality, adding a luck element that is out of place and unnecessary to the larger goal of the game. I don't know what any of this has to do with a tall guy in Basketball. Are you saying "dice are self-evidently the best way to model sports", in the same way that "throwing the ball to the big guy is self-evidently the best way to score"? If that's your argument, I have to say you're missing my point, which is to question the assumption that "dice are the best way". Again, notice I never say "dice are a bad way", just challenging us to think past something that's quick and easy to design when a more decision-producing system could be found.
Quote:So, I don't have an across the board hatred of die rolling, but I do think it's a crutch that a good designer need not lean on; however, when used well, they can really reproduce certain effects nicely.
So which is it? A crutch, or an effective tool? I suppose when you get down to it, a crutch IS an effective tool. I have used crutches when injury has kept me from walking and they worked out all right.
It's situational. Sometimes, designers don't think hard enough to try to find something better than dice to pull off a goal when other options are available. Sometimes, dice do a good job of introducing randomness into the game in a controlled way. It seems you were misunderstanding "my" position to be "dice are always bad" which I've clearly never said, yet are you not saying "dice are always good?" Don't you think there are some games where the dice rolling is not a positive component of the design (cf my Clue example above...)
Also, I think playing cards to thwart other people's plans would not fit into the game as hpox has it. There's already a set number of cards, 1 per round, and it would be cumbersome to add a whole new set or re-vamp this set to accomodate playing cards on other players turns.
Maybe so, but no need to shout done alternative suggestions: the point of this process is to get a lot of ideas on the table, things that you hadn't thought of, so that you can push your design further. hpox can make up his own mind, and I wouldn't necessarily advocate any of my suggestions very strongly except to say that to me, what's important in a game is the opportunity to make meaningful decisions. When I hear a game has dice, there's always a concern that my decisions won't matter. And incidentally, there are other randomizers out there than dice. The "cube tower" in Wallenstein is one of the coolest combat mechanics I've ever seen, and even though it introduces luck, it's a great device. Something like that wouldn't work here, obviously, but I think you get the point: dice are a way to do things, but not "the only" way.
Roll Out the Gun Barrels: Star Strife
By J. L. Butler
A couple of years ago I tried working out a game design similar to this. Never took it too far though after playtesting what I had come up with.
(Note: It wasn't like this game, but used dice like this as "space fighters" and whatnot) Actually, I'm quite glad I saw this post; it helps me to know just how close I was to copying a game and not realizing it. :)
About the game itself. The overall elements of play I like, and I like the idea of using dice in this manner for a strategy game. I think I would enjoy playing once or twice, but one thing I found with my own attempt was that there are aspects of strategic play and a limited degree of complexity in options of actions to be taken that caused (my game idea at least) to become boring very quickly. There was no real desire to play it again due to the fact that there was really nothing truly involving.
With that in mind, as with my own idea and Star Strife both, add some new elements and the game could become more involved and therefore draw your attenttion more.
Just a thought...
Vexx Paradox