Buckets of dice rules ?

[LawnRanger]

why is it that  are fantasy rules have to roll LOADS of dice for combats ect.. and other historical rules get a way with far less dice rolling,
At my local club the other day I saw kings of war being played it looked good until a saw 1 unit having to roll 16 dice to hit THEN roll 7 or 8 dice as they where saves or something like that ! and then the defending chap had to roll some dice in defence I think.I  did not have time to have a good chat with the lads at the club as I was just popping in to drop off figs to some of the lads and they where in full swing as you do.. but next time I will have a good chat with them.

     It just seams very long winded to get to the same out come as if you where rolling 4 dice that's all.
I have played fantasy warlord and that was a good set of rules using D10 dice nice a quick ,is there any other set of rules out there that dosnt  rely  on me rolling bucket loads of dice  :)If not I will stick with my FOG rules .
happy gaming LR

[sukhe_bator]

Some people genuinely prefer that approach - each die or sets of dice representing a warrior(s) prowess in combat. I think historically it stemmed from fantasy/D&D skirmish gaming systems and was itself a reaction away from the early historical rules of the 1970's that relied on the use of factors and multiple sets of tables. IMHO it gives a more immediate and 'real' feel to combat resolution particularly for skirmish and fantasy games.

[fastolfrus]

Not exclusive to fantasy.
We play PBI for WWII and often use a fistful of dice - last game saw Polish rifles shooting (3 dice) vs German LMGs (8 dice).
Seems fair enough - rifles get few dice LMGs lay down a lot of firepower.

[Conquistador]

Really dislike that kind of 3 rolls to have 1 outcome     system, especially with D6s.  

There are so many other ways than that (or the God/god forsaken "tables of death" approach - who cares if I hit a turret ring?!!!  Missed or dead? - Nothing more complicated - and preferably less - than the Dirtside II AFV results, please!) that I sometimes think it is more lazy copycat/familiarity then game design.

As an example there are opposed dice rolls, with or with out differing sided dies; there are D10s; etc.

Strictly IMNSHO after playing war games since about 1959 if you need three sets of die rolls you are confusing "averages" with probability.

Carry on.  Just a grognard grumbling...

Gracias,

Glenn

[Bergil]

How about just weighing up what probably happened between yourselves? No dice needed then.

We've sort of done that, on the spot what if's and rolling between our outcomes. makes for fun games.

[eilif]

I like rolling alot of dice so long as you don't have to roll to many different dice representing different stats at once. (i.e. blue for the hero's power 2 weapon and red for the grunts power one weapon)

KoW is actually a great game for Buckets of Dice rolling. Almost no rolling of differently modified dice. Just Roll to Hit then roll the hits to wound Both rolls needed are noted in the profile.  A roll for unit morale/removal is only done once for each unit at the end of the turn.

It's a nice streamlined change from GW games where not only are you rolling different dice within the unit, you roll to hit, wound and save and then morale, and you have to compare stats to charts.

[Vermis]

What Eilif said.   All of it.

[Hatemonger]

1) Lots of people like rolling dice, just as a tactile experience. Otherwise Yahtzee would probably not exist as a game.

2) Multiple rolls is a way to add granularity to the D6. If the variance in the die can only go up or down by a few pips, you need another way to show differences in e.g. the power of a given gun. In this sense, it is a substitute for dice modifiers.

3) Rolling multiple dice similarly gives a way to model variances in e.g. unit strength and size. As an additional benefit, this provides players with a very intuitive, visual method of comparison. If I pick up 4 attack dice and you pick up 26, I have a good idea that my unit is in trouble.

It also depends on what the game is trying to model. If you use Warhammer rules to play a WWII infantry skirmish, you shouldn't need a "to wound" roll or an Armor save, since any bullet out there is likely to cause a disabling injury, and no personal armor is going to stop it. But when you play a fantasy game where you shoot everything from arrows to muskets to lightning bolts, and can literally have a melee of rats vs. dragon-mounted cavalry, you need something to help account for the broader range of abilities.

- H8

[Conquistador]

<several points that are personal taste and therefore not really open for discussion>

<snip>you need something to help account for the broader range of abilities.

- H8

I just find "buckets of dice" to lack the elegance and speed of other methods.

Gracias,

Glenn

[thebinmann]

Dice over tables here!

And lots of them!

And all types!

But only for wargmaes, not skirmish.

[Vermis]

<one point that is personal taste and therefore not really open for discussion>

Gracias,

Glenn

I like sticking fingers in me ears and singing 'la la la'.

[Conquistador]

I like sticking fingers in me ears and singing 'la la la'.

 

Gracias,

Glenn

[Hatemonger]

I just find "buckets of dice" to lack the elegance and speed of other methods.

Could you provide some examples? I mean concrete situations from actual systems. I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience beyond GW's various games, or RPGs.

Say you have 25 elves with spears and shields, plus a champion and a magical banner. I have 40 orcs with big 2-handed axes, plus my warlord with an (even bigger) enchanted axe. How would you resolve that, and what would the results be? How would things change if one of us had 5 or 10 fewer (or more) soldiers, or different weaponry, or more armor?

I know that "Keep adding dice to your pile" doesn't seem like an elegant mechanic - more like crude - but it is still relatively simple. The only other way I know involves taking all those factors as modifiers and boiling it down to one roll. And mostly that involves looking stuff up on charts, whether it's a big list of what gives +1/-1 to your Winning Awesomeness score, or the target number you need if you have Attack Factor 9 vs. Defense Factor 7. You might like that better, but I wouldn't call it inherently more elegant.

I believe you should make slick elegant systems that are not only fast but require a minimum of everything from dice rolls to looking stuff up.

That would seem like the holy grail, wouldn't it? Have you found it?

I would love to hear comparisons between various systems or "mechanics" and what they're (supposedly) good or bad at doing, assuming this is an appropriate place for the discussion.

- H8

[matakishi]

Where to start?
Warhammer vs Hordes of the Things?
There is nothing wrong with buckets of dice so long as there's a reason for it. Not being able to figure out another way of doing it isn't a reason, it's just lousy design. Warhammer is a badly designed wargame but a brilliantly written marketing tool. HotT is a great design but could do with a different writer. Both cover the same ground but appeal to different types of player.

Rolling a 'hit' that doesn't actually hit is a waste of time and aggravates me every time; I don't mind saving throws for heroes but rolling to hit and then to damage in a fixed damage system is just adding in an unnecessary dice step which is designed to water down the hits.
'I hit lots, I am successful!' is the initial thought of the attacker. The damage mitigation mechanivs, saves, special abilities, re-rolls etc. that follow this (in many systems) are there to salve the victim 'I got hit 32 times but only lost 2 men, I am successful!'. Both players are feeling good and continue to play.
This works well to keep children engaged but fails to work with most adults who can see past the initial euphoria.

In D&D the 'roll to damage' was to see what damage you did from a range of possible outcomes, could have been more elegant yes, but it was early days and it's not an unreasonable mechanic. Successfully hitting and then finding you didn't is just... pointless. Using this approach in a 'dead or not dead' system is bad design.

Two games I wrote use lots of dice but for entirely different reasons. One doesn't use any dice at all.
My personal approach to games is that I like rules that allow me to do things, not rules that prevent me from doing things (and I write my rules accordingly).
For example:
In Crossfire you move and shoot until your opponent stops you.
In Cutlass you need to roll a dice every time you want to run in case you fall over.
In Crossfire your troops act as the trained professionals they are and you can concentrate on planning a strategy to win.
In Cutlass your troops behave like palsied stoners and any plans you make will be scuppered by the need to negotiate an endless list of dice rolls before you can even find your opponent.
I consider one of these games to be no fun at all.
Your opinion my differ, that's fine. I won't criticize a player for choosing to play a particular game, we are all different and like different things and the world is better for it. Game designers who think 'true line of sight' is a good mechanic however are fair game and need to be lambasted publicly for their crapness.

I'll continue to write games I'd like to play and leave it at that. All else is just pissing in the wind as Yoda said.

[redzed]

Where to start?

Top Post that man  


(and Cutlass - A pirate game not involving ships is a bit odd, "The game is land based. that's to say we haven't made rules for ship to ship combat. There's no reason you can't use the existing system aboard ships with existing  ship rules." still makes me laugh)

I quite like the d4,d6,d8,d8,d12 dice games where rolling a 4 is a success, and depending how good your unit/character is depends on how many and what type of dice you roll. Although games utilising a d16,d20 or god forbid a d24 are just a pain.

I also like games which use their own dice, Command & Colours makes excellent use of a standard d6.