Buckets of dice rules ?

[Elbows]

I'm unfortunately guilty of hits and wounds in my own game...tsk tsk.  I don't mind buckets of dice if the mechanics are simple enough.

My game was created though after some horrible moments with various GW games (I was blind to the game world while gaming 40K as a teenager).  But in a game of Legends of the Old West I found myself rolling to hit...then rolling for each piece of cover..then rolling to wound..then only removing a wound and the character was none-the-worse for it.

I actually quit Warmachine (first edition) in the middle of my first game when I had a unit of 20-something figures who were all throwing template weapons..which needed rolls to hit...scatter..then rolls to see what models were partial or fully covered by templates etc.  I literally quit right then and there and never again picked up the game.  Ebayed my stuff that evening.

 

Now simple rule sets like some of the homebrew Civil War games I play at conventions?  I don't mind buckets of dice, but it's normally 'roll a dice for each guy, on a 6 you remove a model from your target'....or something absurdly simple. 

[Andrew May]

^^^^phew, Elbows.

I was starting to worry about the buckets (well, ladles) of dice aspect of my developing ruleset but your post pretty much sums up my experience.

Plus, more confirmation via Warmachine that its not the rules per say that draw in a lot of players.

[Vermis]

Picking out 5's and 6's from that many dice is just ridiculously hard on the eyes. All the dots just bleed into each other.

'Me too!' I thought, and asked if I could order a bunch of numbered dice at a model shop, yesterday. That was a slightly awkward conversation.

Elbows: I admire your conviction!  

Andrew: I think the rules have a little to do with it, in certain circumstances. I've heard one guy's repeated assertion that all the stacked layers of rules and special rules, list-building and BoD of GW-style games looks pretty appealing - to youngsters. It sounds reasonable to me; I remember feeling that way when I started. That's why the Larry Leadhead strip rings true, IMO.

One of my frustrations is that too many gamers don't seem to grow beyond it.

[matakishi]

I've heard one guy's repeated assertion that all the stacked layers of rules and special rules, list-building and BoD of GW-style games looks pretty appealing - to youngsters. It sounds reasonable to me; I remember feeling that way when I started.

It's true, all that specific stuff that old folk find so fiddly and unappealing is retained by younger brains much better and appeals to them. As we mature our brains change and we start to see 'the bigger picture', (it's part of our preparation for parenthood) all those little details get in the way of our desire for clarity and simplicity. Young people just can't do this. The designers of 40k are well aware of this and design their game accordingly. To be fair to them, most of us here are not the audience the game was/is designed for.

Growing up and finding the style of GW games (and Warmachine, D&D etc) unappealing is just a fact of life. The problem comes when someone still wants to game but is unaware of the more adult thought process orientated options available (that's clumsy but 'mature' makes me think of cheese) . The resulting frustration can make people leave the hobby (the bigger hobby, not GW's the hobby) for ever.

Throwing lots of dice does keep children interested and entertained; it's a concrete way that they can control/affect the result of the game they're playing. Giving them a game where winning is dependent on their skill and ability to develop tactics and strategies in response to their opponent's actions will not be as popular because that's just like work for them, it's a difficult task and in no way fun.

Monopoly is far more popular with young people than chess is. As adults we are not 'in the moment' as much as a child is and we can see the endless stretch of pointless dice rolling ahead of us in a sequence. We are aware of the time involved and that changes the value of the pay off at the end for us, usually by devaluing it massively- "for God's sake, it's only one round of combat!". Children cannot. Each roll is distinct and separate and important. In which case, for them,the more dice you throw the better.

[dijit]

Great post Matakishi!

[eilif]

I think that Vermis and Matakishi are right and it certainly jives with most of what my gaming club feels.  We're mostly guys in our 30's and while there are still a couple of us who play 40k and similar games, most of us have a strong preference for streamlined rules and games that get to the point fast.

On the other hand, young folks minds have an incredible capacity for minutiae (how many pokemon can they name...) and the GW experience gives them a depth of rules and fluff that make for a very enjoyable experience that continues (list-building, novels, etc) far beyond the wargames table or workbench.

Still, I think whether or not a game requires a "bucket o dice" has little-or-nothing to do with whether it's a complex rulest or not.  A Bucket o Dice game can be dead simple or a single d6 roll can be modified and conditioned beyond all reason.

[Elbows]

I think also that there is something to be said about the rift between tournament gamers, and gamer-gamers...(if that term works).  The tournament gamers (tend to be Warmachine, GW types) are all about math, min-maxxing, etc.  You can find huge excel spreadsheets about which soldier is more mathematically viable vs. his points cost, and what ratio of victory you can expect from extrapolating all of this data etc.

I lost 95% of the games I ever played in 40K...because I played for story.  This in turn meant that I played how I felt my army would play, and what would make a good story to tell...and was smashed into the table relentlessly for 12-15 years.  I never once played in a tournament.  Whenever I won it was purely by accident!

I think that the more tournament/math based players are also more keen on huge buckets of dice, because in most cases, more dice = more hits/wounds/chances etc. 

I was obviously a fish in the wrong pond.  I'm not afraid to admit that my only produced game, is built in a way that power/decisions are occasionally removed from the player's control - on purpose.  From drawing random forces with random equipment...to random event cards which constantly keep the game off-balance.  It's done so to create a story, and hopefully some back-slapping fun moments which you may actually remember after playing a game.

I see a huge chasm between the Warhammer/Warmachine tournament gamers and the rest of the gaming world at every convention I attend.  Rather sad really.

[Elk101]

Very interesting thread. Much of what has been said mirrors my own experience. I started with rpgs where we ended up using figures on plans, etc. and the started playing Space Hulk, WHFB and Rogue Trader. We got into 40k briefly before getting disillusioned with it. I moved on to historicals and we tend to write our own rules now. Larger games at brigade level tend to only have one set of rolls for firing and two for melee (one per side) and straight to a result. Skirmish level stuff tends to be more character based where figures can be wounded with a hit and damage roll. With smaller games this is more manageable and we find we don't want to be removing figures the way we do in larger games. Plus it's easier to represent different strengths and weaknesses at that level of set up. Horses for courses I suppose  . The main focus of most of our own rules is morale. Shooting and melee affect morale more than actual casualties in our games, which relates to how we differentiate between troop quality.

One of the beauties of the hobby is that it has great flexibility and there is no right or wrong, just degrees of preferences! It reminds me of those survey questions you see thst give a statement and then ask to rate your response between 1) Strongly agree and 5) Strongly disagree!