Skip to Content
 

Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

20 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I had some ideas recently that I implemented in 2 of my game design that consist is replacing dices with a less random mechanics in order to improve the level of strategy and give the players more control on the game. I have found 2 ways so far to replace dices with a semi-random mechanics, if you have any other semi-random mechanics ideas, don't mind posting them.

The first game was a siege war game, you attack a castle. So far, the combat where almost totally deterministic. There where some situation where you rolled a die in combat. But most of the dices rolled where to determine if for example the battering ram actualy destroyed the door or if the cannon finally made a breach in the wall.

Now instead of using dices, I simply I plan on using cards with number on them. You would have X cards in your hand and each time you use a card you draw one. The rolls will be contested rolls ( cards played face down), so the players will need to keep good cards for attacking and defending himself. It increase the strategy level and represent where the player want to put his efforts.

In the second game, your character walk a path with traps, monsters and hazards. Each obstacles requires a roll. I did not like the idea because the player would need to roll like 10 times each turn and the outcome would be totally random which mean the the player would have no control over the game.

The solution I found was inspired from "Fantasy Pub'. At the beginning of your turn, you roll a dozen of dices. Then you select which dices you combine together to overcome the obstacle. Basically, you need 2 dices per roll, but you could combine more than 2 dices to have a better score. So if you combine more dices together, you will overcome less obstacles in a turn and advance slower ( you take your time to do a good job). While if you take lower rolls, you can move faster but you will take more damage since your score vs hazards and monsters was low.

That what I have made so far, there is still adjustments to make in the game, but the idea is there.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

[Note: Dice is already plural. The singular is die. "Dices" is incorrect.]

I like the idea of lessening randomness, and especially like designing systems where skills are simulated in the game by the ability to selectively lessen random factors in your favor.

A method that also works well is a cube draw, where the players can seed the cup with favorable cubes during play, thus influencing their chances of a good draw in the future. Like cards, each non-favorable draw increases the chance of a more favorable draw next time.

Adding die results also limits randomness. If a skill test can only result in values from 1 to 25, and the player rolls from 1 to 6 dice depending on their skill, the bell curve would naturally skew the results upward. Rolls higher than 25 still count as 25. Still random, but less so as the skill increases.

Mixed die rolls also limit the range of randomness, in the sense that d4's are more constrained than d6's. This is especially evident in boolean rolls, where results of one face (usually "1", for uniformity) count as 1, while all others cound at 0. In this case, d4s are better than d6's or d8s. Varients could be faces showing 1 count as 2, while all others count as 1. Or face 1 is worth 1d6, while other results are worth 1. And so on.

Bidding from a known, limits pool is also an excercise in diminishing randomness. As the unused elements (cards, tiles, chips) diminish, the actions of your bidding rivals becomes more predictable, and can, if designed for it, become perfect. This sort of system can favor memory-strong players, or slow the game with endless double-checking of revealed elements, which is an unfortunate possability.

Let me keep thinking on this. There's got to be more semi-random mechanisms I've used in the past...

Stony
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2010
Re: Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Larienna wrote:
At the beginning of your turn, you roll a dozen of dices. Then you select which dices you combine together to overcome the obstacle. Basically, you need 2 dices per roll, but you could combine more than 2 dices to have a better score. So if you combine more dices together, you will overcome less obstacles in a turn and advance slower ( you take your time to do a good job)

Just a few random thoughts after reading your post.

From the sound of it, it still just comes down to whoever makes the best diceroll. If you roll high, you will overcome the obstacles AND move. If you roll low, you will only overcome a few and barely move. I hope there is more to the game than this. :)
I think I would like to add some options, perhaps drawing some cards, where some of these cards would allow scouting ahead, making them able to pick a route with easier obstacles, OR if they already are making good progress, the card could have some other secondary use too that could be activated instead of scouting...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

( Maybe it's in my imagination, but what I hear the people say the word "Dice", they seem to pronounce the "S" )

Just to give more info about the second game, it is a nintendo sidescroller parody. You place the cards side by side to make it look like a video game level and you move from one card to another and overcome obstacle.

The game features all the usual video game stuff like power up, health, hazards, Monters, respawn point, continues, lives, bosses, passwords, etc.

Yes you have a set of cards in hand that can either be played as a special effect or as a normal power up. There are many kind of special effect that represent the vairous things than can happen in a nes video game : Bugs, secret areas, miniboses, cheats, external problems ( the cat jump on the NES ), etc. These cards can either be played on yourself or your opponent. So I think the game won't be luck oriented and it will be less borig to play that rolling in sequence against each obstacle. It also gives you some control like a real video game : Do you want to take your time or do you want to rush in the stage.

I did not want to use cards as semi-random mechanics because I already had cards. And I did not want to cards to have 3 usage ( special/power up/number ). So I decided that managing the dices like this would be better.

Note that a level cards can have from 1 to 4 obstacle, and you cannot only perform half of them because there is no way to mark which have been succeeded. You need to pass them all to get on the next card. So if you lack of dices, all rolls will be made at zero. If your are rolling against creature or hazard, it will only make you lose more health which is not a problem if you are for example invincible, else you'll have to wait for the next turn to get all your dice back. But rolling 0 vs a bottomless pit will kill you instantly even if you are invincible.

So it does gives the player more options in the game and even if the player make a very good dice roll, there is always a few special cards ( ex: Magnetic bottomless pit, Time run out, Parent Intervention ) that can kill a lucky player.

klaivethesecond
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

im making a board game right now that has war elements in it. and i the game mechanic for the fighting is such that u need dice rolls to determine the winner.but to think about it, the card method which u mentioned is a better alternative. thanks for making this thread!

Lykwid
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Hello, second post here, long time reader, I just never felt like I had anything to add or that people wouldn't want my two cents on their design, but I'm throwing caution to the wind and letting my words fly.

It seems to me that the three use mechanic is going to be one of the best ways to balance the game, either by having the more powerful powerups be higher numbers or by having them be of less help when passing an obstacle and more help in the ability it grants.
Either way works well because you have to decide if the card is better at that moment as a obstacle clearer or if it will be better to hold on to it for later use against a bigger obstacle or as the powerup. A lot of ccg's use this style play, especially Decipher, and it made you think of the number plus the card effects when building your decks.

The downside to this is it causes you to burn through your deck a lot faster and unless I overlooked it when reading (which is entirely possible), I didn't see mention of it being possible to run out of cards and what happens if you do.

I do have a couple of questions about your game that might give us some insight. What's the ratio of dice to obstacles? Do you get to reroll when you make it to the next card, or do you clear multiple cards per turn? What's stopping a player from looking at the card, seeing the biggest obstacle and planning backwards from there? And lastly, are there character cards that give different players different abilities?

If any of these have been answered in a previous post and I've just overlooked them, I'm sorry in advance.

Lykwid

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Here are your answers :

- It is not a customizable deck, there is a common deck for everybody and the cards are reshuffled when the deck run out of cards.

- I am not sure yet, I said to myself that maybe each card would have from 2 to 4 obstacle, you would roll between 8 and 12 dices. A stage is made of 5 cards plus a 6th card for the boss. But you can make shorter stages at 4 cards or longer stages at 6 cards.

- Yes you can clear multiple cards in a turn. In fact, the idea of managing a pool of dices is to make you clear more or less cards in a turn. So if you are in a hurry, you can try to clear more cards with lower dice results. The maximum nb of cards that can be cleared in 1 turn would be 3, that is what I am aiming for. Sometimes a 6 can clear an obstacle, so in this case, it only takes one die leaving dices for other actions.

- I don't think there will be character because I want the video game to be theme less. The theme of the game is a side scroller but the sidescroller itself has no theme.

anima022
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Dices

I know someone else here tried to explain the word 'dice', but if I may...

A die is one (1) multi-sided object with numbers or pips or designs or what-have-you printed on the sides (or engraved) in order to indicate a particular result, be it a number, a blank result, a symbol, etc.

Dice is the plural for die. Doubtful, but is there a language barrier here? The 'c' in the word 'dice' is pronounced like an 's' would be. So the pronunciation of 'dice' is: DIESS. Say it rapidly so that it doesn't sound like DIE-SS, but sounds like, well, DICE! :-)

The reason it sounds like there is an 's' in it - as when you write dices - is because of the 'soft c', which is pronounced like an 's'. Since the 'c' is pronounced like an 's', there is no 's' at the end. It's a bizarre quirk of the English language - the same letter can have different pronunciation based on context. Most other languages in the world are not like this!

Hope that helps. Don't know why I really felt the need to help, but what the heck, right??? I was at one time studying to be an English teacher, which included linguistics classes as well... It's in my blood! Haha!

--Rob

lego
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Quote:
it's in my blood

oh so your father was a linguist of sorts? Or your mother, some other distant relative perhaps. Did you become blood brothers with sir francias bacon or did you recieve a blood donation from plato? did the CIA combine a portion of your blood along with some of robert frosts blood? did you at one point make a blood donation that failed to make it to it's recipient and a Karl Marx skin flake was blown into it? Please tell me how you know philology is in your genetic code?

sorry i couldnt resist.

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

lego wrote:
Please tell me how you know philology is in your genetic code?

sorry i couldnt resist.
He didn't say it was in his DNA, just his blood. Might be an acquired virus or even a venereal disease. ;-)

Whatever it is, I thank him for the explanation. The english language is strange and fascinating for a non-native speaker, and while I learnt about die/dice a few months ago (while looking in the dictionary for the english word for "troquel", spanish for die cut block, which also is die), I like people to help us improve our english. Many of us are making an effort to comunicate in an alien language, and any help is appreciated.

Seo

anima022
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Congratulations on winning the "Rudest Post" award

lego wrote:

oh so your father was a linguist of sorts? Or your mother, some other distant relative perhaps. Did you become blood brothers with sir francias bacon or did you recieve a blood donation from plato? did the CIA combine a portion of your blood along with some of robert frosts blood? did you at one point make a blood donation that failed to make it to it's recipient and a Karl Marx skin flake was blown into it? Please tell me how you know philology is in your genetic code?

sorry i couldnt resist.

Never said anything about philology, which is really not related to the pronunciation of the word 'dice' at all, since philology mainly concerns itself with etymology (word origins), historic/ancient texts, and the relationships between different languages. You see, general linguistics and philology really aren't all that similar. In fact, they are remarkably different studies.

Most linguists are primarily focused on the study of speech patterns - not ancient texts or word origins. Syntax, grammar, dialects, and yes - PRONUNCIATION - are those things that the overall broad study of linguistics covers. Since I was simply addressing the difference in pronunciation and spelling of the word 'dice' to someone who - it appears - is not a native English speaker, philology doesn't enter the picture at all. Nor do Plato (a philosopher), Robert Frost (a poet), Karl Marx (a political economist), Sir Francis Bacon (the closest you got, being that he was a renaissance author a la Shakespeare) or the CIA (a U.S. Government agency).

?????

Philology is otherwise known as "comparative linguistics," but the phrase "comparative linguistics" is more a definition than anything. The word 'philology' is not thrown about very much by the general public. Someone asks "what is philology?" the broad, in-a-nutshell answer could be "comparative linguistics." Your statements are akin to someone challenging a doctor's ability/knowledge regarding open heart surgery just because they cannot answer a question about veterinary medicine. The topics are slightly related, as linguistics and philology are, but they're really two entirely different disciplines.

Nice post, though - you made me very happy that I never went into teaching, being that there are obviously people out there who feel the need to provide clever sarcastic retorts instead of appreciating someone that goes out of their way to try to help others. Makes me wonder what you're doing here on a forum where people help one another with their ideas, creativity, design... and yes, occasionally their spelling/pronunciation of GAME-RELATED words.

--Rob

P.S. I have long said 'English is in my blood' as a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that before I turned 4 years old I was reading at a third-grade level. I can't explain that, and I know it's very unusual, but that's why I made my little offhand remark that wasn't supposed to actually mean anything, as it is simply a common figure of speech. So *sorry* it offended you.

Epigone
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Congratulations on winning the "Rudest Post" a

anima022 wrote:
lego wrote:

sorry i couldnt resist.

Nice post, though - you made me very happy that I never went into teaching, being that there are obviously people out there who feel the need to provide clever sarcastic retorts instead of appreciating someone that goes out of their way to try to help others. Makes me wonder what you're doing here on a forum where people help one another with their ideas, creativity, design... and yes, occasionally their spelling/pronunciation of GAME-RELATED words.

--Rob

P.S. I have long said 'English is in my blood' as a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that before I turned 4 years old I was reading at a third-grade level. I can't explain that, and I know it's very unusual, but that's why I made my little offhand remark that wasn't supposed to actually mean anything, as it is simply a common figure of speech. So *sorry* it offended you.
Feeling the need to provide clever sarcastic retorts and appreciating someone that goes out of their way to try to help others are not mutually exclusive traits. Proof: Now you're past 4. What happened??

Okay, so it wasn't clever. But anyway. A world without clever sarcastic retorts is no world for me.

EDIT: Some on topic content... don't forget about the mechanic discussed a few months ago, shared dice rolls. You could roll dozens of dice that players have to choose from, as you said, but they both choose from the same pool. So they both get a 1, two 2's, four 3's, two 4's, a 5, and three 6's to use that turn. In other news, 13 dice can be described as "dozens".

gilbertgea
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Moving right along...

...I just dont get it. Why are some people so hung up on getting rid of dice in their games? I'm not necessarily a "lucky" person (in the sense that I can roll numbers that I want to roll more often than not), but I'm also not suffering from "dice-o-phobia", either.

Someone, please, explain to me why there seems to be this trend towards using something else besides dice. It is because these German games dont use them so much?

I'm lost. Thanks.

Epigone
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

gilbertgea wrote:
Moving right along...

...I just dont get it. Why are some people so hung up on getting rid of dice in their games? I'm not necessarily a "lucky" person (in the sense that I can roll numbers that I want to roll more often than not), but I'm also not suffering from "dice-o-phobia", either.

Someone, please, explain to me why there seems to be this trend towards using something else besides dice. It is because these German games dont use them so much?

I'm lost. Thanks.
I think it's not so much getting rid of dice (at least in this thread) as "replacing dices with a less random mechanics in order to improve the level of strategy and give the players more control on the game". One essential part of wargaming and other games that involve random mechanics is controlling when and how much good or bad luck can actually help or hurt you. If you're not in any position to capitalize on a good die roll, then you may have made some wrong moves in the past. It seems to me that Larienna would like to make this concept more accessible rather than have it be an "advanced play" strategy.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Gilbert ...

I think it depends a lot on the game. In Larienna's original post, he mentioned that in one case he was trying to give the player more of a sense of control ("shape your own luck" or at least smartly influence the odds), and in another a way to speed up the gameplay while keeping obstacle-clearing somewhat luck-based.

I think the Euro games focus more on interesting decisions and player-controlled-outcomes over dice-based luck as a way to allow players more of a sense of being able to play well, instead of hope for good rolls.

-Bryk

Shellhead
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

gilbertgea wrote:
Moving right along...

...I just dont get it. Why are some people so hung up on getting rid of dice in their games? I'm not necessarily a "lucky" person (in the sense that I can roll numbers that I want to roll more often than not), but I'm also not suffering from "dice-o-phobia", either.

Someone, please, explain to me why there seems to be this trend towards using something else besides dice. It is because these German games dont use them so much?

I'm lost. Thanks.

I agree that some people are too obsessed with getting rid of dice in their games. I've tried a number of the euro-games, and they have random elements, too, just not usually dice.

gilbertgea
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2009
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

All,

Thanks for the comments and insight.

Now, dont get me wrong: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I dont have a lot of gaming experience in terms of quantity (i.e. the number of different types of games I've played), but I think I have a pretty good bit of experience qualitatively speaking (i.e., playing games with different types of mechanics).

That said... Brykovian, I understand that the trend (esp. in German/Euro-games) is to give players more control over the outcome of their decisions and rely less on luck. I think that is a natural desire for anyone: to see their plans come to fruition.

However, as Shellhead pointed out, getting rid of the dice simply means that you have to substitute some other random mechanic.

Afterall, almost all games involve some form of competition or objective-orientation, whether the players are playing against each other or against the game itself. And, unless the game has a forgone conclusion, a designer is all but compelled to introduce a random element. Afterall, if you can predict the outcome to every one of your actions, then there is no point to playing a game. You can just write a script and read it to your friends.

I give you an observation of this "get rid of the dice/substitute something else" theme in my limited experience. Instead of dice, lets say players can draw from a deck of cards that represent various events, etc. that they can experience during a game. Unless the deck is stacked, the game is still random, because you dont know which card you will draw next. The only thing that makes a deck of cards less random than dice rolls is the fact that, unless you return the card drawn to the deck and reshuffle it every time, you can figure out what cards are left by process of elimination.

So anyhow, I know that the fallback position is "its a matter of the game designer's taste", and I accept that. However, whether or not the game uses dice, cards, a spinner, or something else, I dont think that there is any way to get around including the random element unless you make a game like chess, checkers, or diplomacy.

End of rambling.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

You are forgetting one other (and very important) source of randomization in mutli-player games ... the chaotic and (usually) unpredictable nature of human decision-making. This is the main reason that games like Diplomacy are different from game to game.

Even in full-information abstracts, games are different each time because you really *can't* predict 100% accurate what the results of your move will be in the longer term ... because it depends completely on the responsive decisions and moves made by the other player(s).

I personally prefer some randomizing and hidden-information mechanics (Castle Danger aside) ... not only for adding in a little chaos, but also for limiting what a player can predict (which usually helps to speed up players' turns).

So, in the end, I don't disagree with you about dice ... I'm not allergic to them and find them an enjoyable part of playing the games where they fit well. Just the same: I enjoy drawing cards, or selecting cubes/tiles from an opaque bag, etc. They all have their place.

-Bryk

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

gilbertgea wrote:
Instead of dice, lets say players can draw from a deck of cards that represent various events, etc. that they can experience during a game. Unless the deck is stacked, the game is still random, because you dont know which card you will draw next. The only thing that makes a deck of cards less random than dice rolls is the fact that, unless you return the card drawn to the deck and reshuffle it every time, you can figure out what cards are left by process of elimination.

No, it's much more than that: it gives the designer control.

Let's say you have an event in the game that you don't want to come up very often (because it can throw things off) but it happening once per game or so is great fun. If you use dice you could, for example, say it only happens on the roll of a 12 on two dice. That's pretty rare, only a 1 in 36 chance.

BUT it's possibe that three players in a row can roll a 12, because the dice are completely random. With cards, though, you could put the event one time in the deck and know that it will only happen ONE time through, no matter what.

Cards are randomness with "memory" of what has happened. Dice have no memory at all and even though odds say x will only be rolled a certain number of times, that's only true over an infinite number of rolls; within one game the improbable number can be rolled many, many times while the highly probably number (like a 7 on 2d6) could easily never show.

That doesn't make dice worse or better -- dice might be preferred where that true memory-less randomness is more fun -- but it does mean that cards have a very specific game-design power that dice do not, giving the designer a lot more control over the randomness.

-- Matthew

adagio_burner
adagio_burner's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Plus, cards give you a possibility to give random options to players secretly. Die rolls can be kept secret, too, for a while, but it is rather inconvenient and provides too much opportunities for cheating :) It is much more convenient with cards.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Replacing dices with semi-random mechanics

Thre is another thread that show the opposition between the "random camp" VS the "Determinist camp". It could be fun to check to know why people can hate randomness so much.

http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2054

Anyways, I do not hate dice, they just need to be used in the right condition. In my video game parody, with dice rolling, players would have to make in average 8 dice roll per turn. Try it, you'll see that it is pretty much anoying to perform physically. It reminds me of Ninja burger where you needed to do many dice roll in sequence to perform a mission.

One of my war game require 1 or 2 dice roll per player for each combat between 2 units. And I am now thinking that the players might be tired of rolling dices during a game.

Even if you use dices, the probabilities can be tweaked. For example, in my war game, the probabilities are made in a way that normally you should hit your opponent. If you are lucky you can destroy him instantly ( 0 to 5%)and if you are bad lucky you can miss ( around 25% ). But even with randomness, you can plan your strategy in advance because you know that normally, your tank should kill the unit it is attacking.

Increasing the probability to hit make sure that you make more damage, reducing the number of engagement, since there is less units on the field, and the number dice roll to make in a game.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut