'Modern' games and dice combat

That's just a particularly silly bias from some people who think that what they see most often in the games they admire must be better than other choices.

Having every declared action or choice always end up with the same results with no random element at play makes many sorts of games more predictable, boring and less entertaining. Anyone who makes a hard and fast declaration like that is simply being unimaginative and following the pack.

And that's only to be expected.

Game publishers -- like movie producers, art dealers, book publishers and so forth -- are going to be quirky about some issues and follow trends blindly regardless of whether they ultimately make a good end product or not. They're chasing a market and following a mindset. They don't ultimately care what might be better suited for a particular game, they care about fitting in. If you want to work with them you have to fit what they are looking for. It's just the business end of things. If you want to ignore them, then find a publisher or designer who isn't hung up on such silliness, or bypass them and do your own thing.

Action itself can be random, for example; the combat system I use works as follows; Attacker's Combat Factors - Defender's combat Factors = Combat Factors Attacking, this number is referenced against a chart (that has predetermined outcomes) where a die is rolled to determine the result, however before the die is rolled both the Attacker and Defender can add Political Points (which represent everything from morale, leadership to efficiency) for or against the roll. So a player with overwhelming odds but terrible leadership could lose to a player who has outstanding leadership and morale. Probability is still present but the actions of the interaction between the player's choices can sway that probability either way.
War or combat by attrition alone is a pure numbers game and lacks (in my opinion) any adventure or risk.

Actually I tend to avoid the RANDOMNESS - ACTION - RESULT scheme. When it is used, players need to rethink their plans and choose the ACTION right after RANDOMNESS has been introduced. This usually means more downtime for other players and generally slows the game down.

I'm not seeing how that adds any depth at all. I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly just don't see it. You had depth and decision point before, just in a different order.

I think overall that wildly random things happening makes things too much like nothing you do really matters. Lack of randomness makes people focus like a laser beam on exploiting rules to their maximum advantage, and only the people who are most obsessive have any real chance of winning... which is fine for the obsessives, I guess, but not for anyone else. Some randomness is not only good but necessary for most board games. Where that randomness enters should be able to vary based upon the needs of the game design.

Dice on cards are just as random as dice, only more difficult to predict (calculating the odds of something is a pain, unless there are so many cards that it is for all practical purposes equivalent to real dice anyway). The exception were I think it works is when you have individual decks that are only used once (like in Ave Caesar).

As for decision then random or the other way around, I don't believe there is a difference other than in the mind of the designer/player. Either you get to react to the randomness of your turn or to the randomness created by your opponent. One doesn't involve less strategy than the other.

I can see where these guys from Czech games are coming from. Their remark shows that they have been thinking about game design a lot, which is a good thing. However, I believe that it is important to not get stuck in one level of thinking.

To illustrate what I mean:

Level 1 - beginning game designer: "Monopoly, Risk, Life, they all have dice! Dice are good! Must design a game with dice!"

Level 2 - designer logs on to BGG and BGDF for the first time and sees the light: "Puerto Rico, Euphrat & Tigris and all these "designer" games don't have no stinkin' dice. Dice are bad! Evil! No more utter randomness in my games!!!"

Level 3 - designer rediscovers the fun in some other games: "What a minute, some of these games with random elements are still a lot of fun. Settlers has dice, after all. Yspahan uses dice in a "modern" and clever way! Dice can be used after all, but only when used sparsely and then only in the randomness -> action -> result pattern!"

I know, because I have been through these stages myself.

These Czech guys are stuck in level 3, what they believe to be the"right" mindset for designing games. For a publisher of euro type of games, this is not a bad mindset to have. After all, their likely customers will have a similar taste.

That said, there's nothing wrong with using dice in the old-fashioned: action -> randomness -> result pattern. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve as a designer. Dice are just a tool to be used, sometimes it is the right tool when used in the right way. Don't get stuck in one level of thinking.

Corsairs (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/840) is a 'modern game' that does this rather well. I will echo the sentiment that they are welcome to their opinion, but I wouldn't let that stop you. Honestly, you might have better luck marketing the game to an American company. The way I look at is as long as the game is fun, you'll find someone to publish it, dice or no dice. All it needs is some good word of mouth and it will sell.

-Darke

It doesn't. Not really, anyway, because you're approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You already established the action you want to do (shooting at other soldiers), or maybe that's the only action in the game. You need some phase before choosing the action...

However, suppose there are different actions a player may take. Say, you can
1) shoot with a unit at enemy units
2) gather resources
3) move a unit
4) buy a new unit
5) draw an action card

Now at the start of a round a number of dice are rolled. Players take turns picking a die and using that for one action of their choice. For some actions a lower number is better than a higher number, for other actions it is the other way around. Repeat this until all the dice in the pool have been picked.

For example, when you want hit a tank with one of you infantry units you need to pick a die with the number four (or higher) on it. A hit is automatic, no need for more randomness, just pick a high enough die. However, when you want to buy a new unit, a lower number is better, maybe because it allows you to buy better units, or at a discount.

This way, the dice somewhat vary which actions will be picked, making the game not completely deterministic. However, when a player chooses a particular die and action, the outcome will not be in doubt. This is a way to introduce RANDOMNESS -> ACTION -> RESULT in a combat game.

Which is exactly the point. They don't understand that "modern game" (or, more importantly "enjoyable game") doesn't necessarily equal Eurogame.

So, yes, submit to a publisher that fits your designs, but don't assume one publisher's standards is what all publishers believe or what we as designers should necessarily be following. To follow your example, if we let Harley Davidson dictate the rules for all motor vehicle designs, then the world would be in pretty bad shape.

If you want to be published in the eurogame market, you absolutely do need to consider that the standard includes limited random determination, or a least randomness that you can reasonably mitigate. If you want to create an action-randomness-result game where the randomness has a big effect on the result, don't let the eurogame style stop you. Just don't go to a eurogame publisher and expect them to see it otherwise. Be prepared for Hans Im Gluck, Amigo Spiel, Alea, etc., to all turn you down immediately after hearing about the role of randomness in the game.

I'm reacting to some of the things said so far in the thread, like "they seem to sell Monopoly (and Risk) in most department stores" and "that's just a particularly silly bias from some people who think that what they see most often in the games they admire must be better than other choices" and the comments about roleplaying games doing it. Czech Games has a type of product to publish, and it would frankly be very foolish of them to consider publishing a traditional wargame (or something that resembles one) under their imprint because their soon-to-be-dissatisfied buyers will be expecting a eurogame. They've established marketing and a distribution channel based on that, and it would be bad business indeed (especially at their current size) to pollute their message and channel with something that will confuse buyers.

I stand by that comment 100%. Yes, if you submit to a game company that is biased towards Eurogame styles, of course you should expect it the game to have to be a Eurogame if you want to get it published by them. But that's not the same as being a good game or a modern game or so forth. Companies are free to be biased. It's their money, they can spend it the way they see fit. But it's still a bias just the same, and one that other companies and game designers and people who play games don't have to buy into.

So, when you called my comment "nonsense," is it because you misread it and thought it said something other than what it did, or do you actually believe that all "modern games" are Eurogames and everything else is outdated?

And no, of course I don't think that all modern games are eurogames. Nor do I even think that eurogames will stay the way they are currently for some infinite amount of time.

Realize that regardless of anything each designer needs to know the company they are pitching. If you think the company acts rudely, don't work with them.

Each philosophy is modern enough to sell if done in a way that pleases. Rather than debate which is better, I choose to think of them like I think of all game mechanics... is it the best thing for the game?

Think what happens when songwriters are stuck. They write a song and its 4 chords that sound great. It was written on a guitar at a high tempo and the song felt like a hard rock hit. Then, nothing happens except the songwriter can't seem to make the song work. So, maybe that songwriter takes the tempo down, adds a string section, changes the key and turns the anthem into a ballad. If he made the best song with those 4 chords, wouldn't he be happiest?

Let the game dictate the mechanic... but make sure you know which company wants the game.

For me, the issue with randomness is using it outside its place. And to me, its place is as a means to "spice up" (or add a spin to) an action.

Conversely, the wrong place for randomness is as a major (or worse, the ONLY) deciding factor for an action or its success. For instance, in a table-top wargame (e.g., Warhammer 40K), dice almost always COMPLETELY dictate success. You could horribly outmatch your opponent, but if all the dice give you are 1s and 2s, you are in trouble. Thus, in this case randomness DECIDES the game. Good play is simply a modifier for the dice rolls.

The even bigger issue is when a predominantly luck based game (e.g., Italian card games) poses as being a game where decisions matter. I quite playing Italian card games with my girlfriend's family because of the following example: her and I were on a team, against her sister and gramma. We played about as well as could be played with the cards we had, and lost horribly. The next round, I kept all my cards face-down and did not look at them once, playing the top card of my pile. We won that round by a landslide. The point being that the game was clearly decided by luck, but they wanted me to play it as if my decisions mattered.

[/RANT]

[EDIT: I am on the same page as Awakener76. Randomness should enhance actions, NOT decide them.]

So I say, if randomness fits then do NOT shy away from it.

In fact, this discussion has compelled me to re-evaluate my combat mechanic on one of my own designs. This game is a strategy board-wargame, and the audience for such games generally like dice. Mind you, the game has no objectives/points for killing opponents, so games are won through a solid focus on objectives. It just so happens that destroying opponents prevents them from thwarting your plans or getting in your way.

My current mechanic is that combat is a comparison of Attack versus Defence (note: Canadian spelling :-), with possible modifiers (and/or limits to how much damage can be done). Additionally, players may choose to play one of a handful of cards that can give them advantages (or penalties to their foes) such as causing the target to flee, or damage modifiers.

But you might not always use those cards (they are limited in number), especially in larger games. Also, I run the risk of having my audience think that this interaction is boring.

So now I am considering adding a combat value to the 12 special cards that each player has. These cards have all kinds of special abilities/effects, but adding a combat value forces players to choose between using these special tricks, or powering up their attacks.

In either case, the randomness is really uncertainty: you do not know what your opponent will play. But it just so happens that his cards have a "memory" as another user said. Yes, you can use your best cards right away, but that will give your opponent an advantage later, so you may save your better cards for crunch time.

Do others consider this a randomness mechanic (or at least a satisfying alternative)?

To me this all seems to boil down to whether a game is abstract or attempts to simulate a situation.
A-R-R is what simulation games use. You choose an action and you have a chance of that action succeeding.
Allot of more abstact games use R-A-R where the play is more important than the simulation (allthough this is by no means universal).
I actually disagree with the whole argument however, because taken over a course of turns A-R-R is R-A-R. In risk you adjust your strategy based upon the last battles rolls.