Dice

[Anastasia]

Do you like using dice in gaming?

Simple question that I'm curious as to the answers. I'm hoping for more than yes/no answers here.

I do. I think they serve as a sufficient way to help adjudicate conflict and add an element of randomness into conflict resolution. When you roll a die, you're taking things into your own hands and hoping it works out. There's no guarantee, just like in any conflict. You could always roll the dreaded natural 1 or score a natural 20. There's always that tension, that tingling mix of hope and dread that your dice rolls are going to work out the way you want them to. You get more into things that way and it adds another dimension to gaming. What gamer doesn't have a set of lucky dice, or a particular way they roll them? Who hasn't been elated at rolling a critical hit when it matters, or agonized by sudden failure with a terrible roll?

Keeps things exiting, at least for me.

[Yuthirin]

Dice are cool.

They represent the best way to give a random result like life would, though it's not necessarily the same. Situations differ. It's better than just going, "Yeah, you hit him. Again. He's dead. Yawn."

[Carthrat]

When you roll a die, you're taking things into your own hands and hoping it works out.

Aren't you actually doing the opposite by consigning yourself to fate?

What gamer doesn't have a set of lucky dice, or a particular way they roll them?

Me?

Who hasn't been elated at rolling a critical hit when it matters, or agonized by sudden failure with a terrible roll?

I've been agonized way more than I've been elated, to be honest. These days it's more just a matter of shrugging; stuff rarely comes down to a single die roll anyway.

Dice have a place, of course. In fantasy worlds the dice combine with our stats to give us a metric on our own character's abilities, which is often necessary so we have an idea on how to properly take action and frame our plans. It helps to have a good idea of how likely I am to accomplish some task, or how I stack up on the food chain of combat, etc. And it is very often appropriate to have a random element to our actions. They suffice as a way to adjudicate conflict, and indeed suffice as a way to adjudicate many kinds of conflict and produce results in a clear, non-arbitrary fashion. This can be very important for games with several players in them; having a clear set of rules ensures everyone is on the same page. And it can indeed be fun for a random, 'organic' result to be generated by their presence; this is probably the best reason to do so! They're a great aid for a GM in figuring out how to play a scene, too.

But sometimes, games don't need them. Sometimes, games suffer for their presence. I think the situation Yuth presents is a bit disingeneous; while the classic D&D-model of gaming involves slaughtering hordes of monsters (and we must thus make the very act of slaughtering them fun; it is an end in itself), not all games play out that way. For instance, if you're playing a game that focuses on, say, con artists, I would think that using dice to determine all outcomes would be a detriment that takes away the aspects of actually running the con; a similar motion could be passed for stuff like mystery stories. And in the broadest note, what player hasn't had a scene totally ruined for them because the dice happened to be lame that day?

I can't say I have any special attachment to them. Totally arbitrary GM conflict resolution is fine if the GM's good, and you can even make a place for playing a game where there is no randomness and the outcome of actions is determined entirely by circumstances and hard stats.

[Dracos]

I'm glad this is about randomness more than dice really.  Cuz dice alone suck.  They're an awkward tool for randomness that in plenty of game systems (D&D, Vampire, Exalted, Seven Seas, etc) can often become a crowd on the table by mid/high power levels ("Okay, so I have 4 attacks each with potentially 5 dice of damage?  So up to 24 rolls a turn?"  "I'm a vampire, gonna go suck their blood, how many...oh sheesh, 12d10?  And then reroll all 0s?  Deliver me automated rolling~")

Definitely in agreement with Rat.  Heck, even the reverse: Who hasn't had a scene become somewhat silly when the dice are on fire?  "Wow, I kinda meant that encounter to be a major challenge, but this guy opened with a crit and everyone hit with every attack and ...well, boss fight over."  "I'd like to convince the king I'm his friend *Natural 20*".

I tend to prefer dice kept secret and used for a hint of organic randomness behind the scenes.  Something that the DM might use in addition to their judgement to tilt scenario ("Two expert swordsman exchange blows...").  I like that the DM can be non-arbitrary at times.  "Dice say that this diplomacy effort screwed up...  but that knocks off the clue sets I have planned for the players and they were trying, so its no fault of their own..."

This isn't saying I don't enjoy dice based games, definitely do.  But don't have a specific love for randomness in general.  It shows in how I play them, I tend to find things that I can count on will work in any place they are applicable, where the dice are almost a foregone conclusion.  "Yes, I dance skillfully through the enemies.  Yes, I knock that guy down, yes I tell an interesting tale that befriends the lonely noble, yes, I tame the wild stallion, yes I drink the elf under the table." or the reverse "Yes, I run away from the strong looking guys, yes I find the puzzle hard, yes I choose to read rather than bar hop, yadda yadda".  Such things give a more predictable ability set to consider when approaching a scene (Battle or not).

</Incoherentposting>

[Iron Dragoon]

As far as combat goes, I like the use of dice, especially with the double crit/failure confirm. I've considered proposing something like BAB effect on the crit/fail range. BAB is reflected in Level. To me, a level 10 character should have far less chance of crit failing than a level 1, and a far better chance of scoring a crit.

Mechanics of it.. Well, I don't know GM side of things well enough to really make it work, but something like.. Every 5 levels you get a bonus to your crit range. As far as the crit fail, the double confirm pretty much negates any bonus to it; I mean, if you roll two 1's in a row, you *should* crit fail.

As far as skill checks go.. Ehh.. I like to depend on a mix of rolls and GM decisions here. A level 1 character with 4 in Diplomatic shouldn't be able to convince a King with a Diplomatic skill of, say 15, that he's flat out the best thing since sliced bread regardless of the roll. That said, I don't think a crit success in this situation should be ignored; I feel that in regards to a skill check, a 20 should give a unique insight/clue to succeeding. At least in regards to Social skills.

I feel this opens up a more in-depth/interactive use of the skills. As it is now, arguing your way out of prison should be harder than just rolling a 20 and essentially getting a pass. The 20 should give you insight into, say, a personality quirk of the Sheriff you could use, or in the case of a Knowledge check, a unique loop-hole. Then you'd have to actually work it into your argument.

Then again, that could lead into long conversations where a single character dominates; while that's what happens in RL, in a game, it gets boring for everyone real quick. Though, I suppose the GM could slant the insights into including the other characters and letting the 'specialist' including the other characters.

I could be completely off and no one agrees with me, too =D

[Dracos]

Iddy:  At higher levels (12+), the party as a whole is throwing out 15-20 attacks a round.  Their enemies often as many.  At epic, 4-5 attacks is almost a minimum from anyone full attacking, with 6-7 not being unlikely.  Sure, not everyone gets a full attack off and some are going with magic anyway (Most), but really that's even worse.

A 1 followed by a 1 is a 1 in 400 chance.  Really, pretty low.  But at 40 attacks per turn, that becomes a 1 in 10 chance to see it each round from somebody.  Provided your encounter goes 5 rounds, you have as good odds as getting Tails on a coin that someone will crit fail.  Sure, it might be the bad guy, but basically, the 1/400 odds only really work nicely in the early levels where having 2-3 attacks is rare.

Crits become even sillier.  A round of epic full attacks is gonna have some crits.  It doesn't need any help to end up that way.

Nym...  Food coma.  Incoherent response is lose ;_;.

[Carthrat]

I like how the discussion has rapidly splintered into being D&D-specific.

High-level D&D does showcase an issue with dice, though, which is that at high levels of play the rolling overhead becomes sorta monstrous. It's usually okay in an online setting. In person? It's a real chore. I've tried playing Exalted. Counting fistfuls of dice isn't that great.

[Iron Dragoon]

Iddy:  At higher levels (12+), the party as a whole is throwing out 15-20 attacks a round.  Their enemies often as many.  At epic, 4-5 attacks is almost a minimum from anyone full attacking, with 6-7 not being unlikely.  Sure, not everyone gets a full attack off and some are going with magic anyway (Most), but really that's even worse.

A 1 followed by a 1 is a 1 in 400 chance.  Really, pretty low.  But at 40 attacks per turn, that becomes a 1 in 10 chance to see it each round from somebody.  Provided your encounter goes 5 rounds, you have as good odds as getting Tails on a coin that someone will crit fail.  Sure, it might be the bad guy, but basically, the 1/400 odds only really work nicely in the early levels where having 2-3 attacks is rare.

Crits become even sillier.  A round of epic full attacks is gonna have some crits.  It doesn't need any help to end up that way.

Nym...  Food coma.  Incoherent response is lose ;_;.

Ah, well, I've never been in a game with a character that high, so I've got nothing to go on concerning it. From what you and Rat are saying, yeah, dealing with a ton of crit confirms would be a pain.

[Dracos]

I like how the discussion has rapidly splintered into being D&D-specific.

High-level D&D does showcase an issue with dice, though, which is that at high levels of play the rolling overhead becomes sorta monstrous. It's usually okay in an online setting. In person? It's a real chore. I've tried playing Exalted. Counting fistfuls of dice isn't that great.

Yeah, all of the ones by that company are the same way there.  I played some in person vampire before and everyone just had ridiculous stacks of D10s that they rolled significant chunks of.  You shouldn't need dozens of dice to play.

ANd well, for better or worse, most of us here use D&D as our shared vernacular for discussion.  Talking about how dice based design made online initiatives painful in Seventh Sea would be something that maybe 3 people reading this thread might get.  It's also an easy representation of both the strengths and weaknesses of random numbers and of dice as mechanics and tools.

But we can all go Hero if we want.  :3

[Carthrat]

Hey, I thought hero was mostly elegant with dice.

(except for presence attacks.)

[Dracos]

Hey, I thought hero was mostly elegant with dice.

(except for presence attacks.)

Yeah, it (and its contemporaries tristat and besm) do largely keep the number of them down (Yay).  I was mostly teasing :)

[Brian]

There's a potential subdiscussion in this insofar as:

HERO uses only d6es (the most OBTAINABLE of dice!) and D&D uses all dice (except d12s if you don't use barbarians (LAWL!)).

I kinda like my funny shaped dice, though. :3

I'll be editing this post in the morning when I'm bitter and hung-over with more articulated points about what dice mean to me, but in general:

I approve of this thread.