Buckets of dice rules ?

Advanced search

[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

[Scurv]

some people think rolling lots of dice = more fun.

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. Anything less is lazy self indulgent game design that belongs to a world now 30+ years gone. (back in the days when thousand counter wargames roamed the earth and a good rpg had 56 hit locations....yawn.)

[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

[Scurv]

Fantacide, JDMG, my game, war engine to name a few have simple elegant systems.

opposed rolls are always a good mechanic.

The other thing is if there is  bit of paperwork before the game in terms of an army list or what not, thats acceptable because it then minimises any looking crap up in the middle of a game.

For example you might have something like orc attack 5 defence 3. Give him a big axe that adds two to his attack and a shield for +1 defense. On the army list you now have an orc attack 7 defence 4. All this crap has happened pre game so its not a huge drag.

Using opposed rolls for example in an orc vs orc fight with the above stats. Orc A attack 7 swings at orc B defence 4. Both roll 1Dsomething and add their applicable stat. Highest roll wins the loser falls over dead and the game rolls on.

Fast elegant simple with little to no looking up of tables.

Now people will say but an orc is tough and can take lots of trauma so there should be some sort of toughness stat and more rolling to see if it got hurt after the attack defeated the armour. What bullshit. the defence stat should take all those variables into account to end up with the end number. The roll represents 2 or more beings fighting. If the attack succeeds one can safely assume not only did it get past the armour but inflicted a would capable of taking the beast out of the fight. anything less is represented by the model staying put and fighting on.  

People who create these layered systems where there is a roll to hit then a roll to get past the armour then another roll to wound are smoking crack. How is that in any way different from using a universal value to represent all 3 in bottom line terms? ITS NOT! its just added a bunch of stupid and lazy.

Now I am sure someone is already fingers hovering over the keyboard to say 'hang on, using that system all units start to look a bit generic.'

well yeah they do, if thats a problem then add some tweaks/traits/abilities to differentiate them. In most fantasy an orc has a slightly better attack and a slightly worse defence from a human. The big difference is the orc lacks discipline. use a tweak like may attack without orders which will send the mobs of orcs off at the closest enemy if they fail some sort of roll or loot the dead which halts any mob after a successful melee attack for one turn while they loot the corpses. You can give them bonuses too like warcry which gives them a bonus if they charge into combat etc.

Thats the way of good design in my book.  

In fact as a final thought have a look at the x-com computer game for an elegant system. Its pretty much a slick set of table top rules on a computer. The only change I would make is to lose the u go i go mechanics and replace it with a command point system or alternate activation or something like that as it gives a better tactical game. (on the proviso it added more for pretty much the same amount of thinking and doing stuff as the ugoigo it replaces otherwise its not worth it.)