The Feel of the Dice

[eyebeams]

One thing that's often ignored in game design is what players are actually doing when they roll the dice (or draw cards, or what have you). I think this resolves a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth when people ask why gamers are persistent in enjoying things like Exalted and the Rifts.

I'm not talking about story, or success, or anything to do with what we normally talk about as play. I'm talking about:

* The sensation of counting bonuses and penalties.
* The feel and look of a handful of d10s.
* What the player associates with a single die roll.

I'm talking about the basic monkeywork of play. Lots of people seem to like doing the following:

* calculating bonuses
* avoiding complex math
* rolling high/over (exception! People like to roll under percentiles.)
* a roll that is equivalent of a single, discrete action ("roll to parry")
* rolling dice pools of dice with fewer sides, or single dice with more sides.
* not having to look things up.

Some of this is subjective. You can train yourself to do math for a game quickly once you get to know it. People can doo HERO math easily after they get into it and people can memorrize books so they don't have to look stuff up.

In fact, this training is a deliberate part of some designs. As Monte Cook noted, D20 is deliberately written to take time to grasp. He calls this principle System Mastery. Commerically, it encourages players to stick with a game because they've invested time learning it.

In this context, the popularity of many games is easier to get.

Rifts: discrete action+bonuses+roll high+single die, lots of sides.
Exalted: discrete action+bonuses+roll high+dice pool, few sides+low math.

Now you may agree or disagree with the tendencies I'm talking about, but in any event, what about the principle of the thing? Lots of games seem to focus on getting to the result in game and not so much on the aesthetics of actually using a game system, in of itself. Any other thoughts?

[talysman]

I can say that I have definitely been thinking more of the in-game aesthetics of die rolls lately. it was the reason why I made slight changes to the way Court of 9 Chambers handles rolls, for example. I decided that rolling all the dice on your turn, then physically pushing forward each die one at a time while interpretting the result as in-game description gives the game a much better feel; you intuitively know, after playing this way, that more dice means more opportunity to work in description, which means more successes. it also allows the player to describe one die, then the opponent to respond, then the player to describe or respond, then the opponent to respond again, and so on, which keeps everyone totally involved at all times, instead of other players having to wait while the current player finishes all possible descriptions before taking their turn.

[Dr. Velocity]

Interesting mechanic from talysman - never played a 'non-standard' rpg, but that sounds kinda neat.

Interesting and, to me, pretty accurate assessment by eyebeams. I know I personally fall under those categories. I don't like doing math for anything more than a few plusses or minuses, as it slows things down and I lose my train of in-game thought.

I lean heavily toward D6s, though I am unsure about dice pools - I understand and like the concept that every skill level of what-have-you is an entire die that might roll really well (or poorly), but first off, this limits you (in my opinion) to a pracitical maximum of about 5 dice at once (it really is hard to hold more than 5 dice at a time, and I have fairly large hands) - PLUS, each face on a SINGLE die has the same chance to come up as any other - making it absolutely random. If a 1 is a failure and a 6 is a success, even though you're rolling like 5 dice, you still don't have any real application of your "5 dice ability score" - you're as likely to fail or succeed or "stay put" with 5 dice as 1 - this makes the point of having a skill level seem weak - thus I have recently been favoring a simple 2D roll with a bell curve, with more likelihood of "average" outcomes being the middle of the die roll range.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I can say that I have definitely been thinking more of the in-game aesthetics of die rolls lately. it was the reason why I made slight changes to the way Court of 9 Chambers handles rolls, for example. I decided that rolling all the dice on your turn, then physically pushing forward each die one at a time while interpretting the result as in-game description gives the game a much better feel; you intuitively know, after playing this way, that more dice means more opportunity to work in description, which means more successes. it also allows the player to describe one die, then the opponent to respond, then the player to describe or respond, then the opponent to respond again, and so on, which keeps everyone totally involved at all times, instead of other players having to wait while the current player finishes all possible descriptions before taking their turn.

Just great. I should have known that I should have read that game right away instead of leaving it to wait. But oh, no, I just had to go and duplicate the system in my IGC work. I'm starting to have trouble with keeping track of all the games I've ripped of either coincidentally or unintentionally with the Battle of the Frozen Waste.

Word to the wise: never leave reading a game for tomorrow if you can do it today. Saves you from looking stupid.

As to the subject at hand, I agree. There is great potential in catering to the lower instincts of the players. Good to see the idea verbalized, it'll probably make it's way to some design of mine some of these days.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
Now you may agree or disagree with the tendencies I'm talking about, but in any event, what about the principle of the thing? Lots of games seem to focus on getting to the result in game and not so much on the aesthetics of actually using a game system, in of itself. Any other thoughts?

Now, are you talking about how it has the same sort of thrill as gambling (particularly those where it's all chance, truely no strategy will help you).

Or are you mentioning something like that, but more about the drum roll effect: *drum roll starts* Roll the dice *drum roll rises* see the result *drum rises higher, if that's even possible* do the math *KA BOOM CHING!* the RESULT!

Both are strangely satisfying, yet have no player input at all. I get the feeling its as if as players ourselves, we are making a personal fate check and seeing the exact result. Actually thrilling, I'll admit.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

I think this may be an example of the Gamble aspect of Gamism (see the "Step On Up" essay). I know I get no payoff to speak of from that aspect of play unless I'm playing in a Gamist mode, and even then, the payoff I get is less that what I get from seeing my tactics prevail (the Crunch).

When I'm playing in a Simulationist mode, having to roll the dice is annoying, because it interrupts my creative focus on Exploration. When I'm playing in a Narrativist mode, rolling the dice is sometimes interesting, but only when the story could go in two equally fascinating directions based on the result, and I can't wait to see which.

[BPetroff93]

I agree with Seth, I think the aesthetics of the dice greatly depends on which CA is being used.  Other than that, I enjoy a variation of systems.  Each handles differently and I find that to be part of the fun of playing a new game.  

In terms the dice themselves, I'm not a big fan of D6's.  I like my funky dice.  D6's harken back to the young trama of "family board game night."  Emphasis on BORED.  Also it seems a shame not to put the  variation that has evolved out of my dice collection, through natural selection, to good use.

[eyebeams]

I'm not really talking about gambling. You can get the same issues with Karma, though with Drama, you're really going back to the story, so it really doesn't concern what I'm talking about. Even the feeling of certainty that comes from having a static level of ability (like Amber of Nobilis) has a certain feel to it that can be better or worse depending on its implementation.

[talysman]

Just great. I should have known that I should have read that game right away instead of leaving it to wait. But oh, no, I just had to go and duplicate the system in my IGC work. I'm starting to have trouble with keeping track of all the games I've ripped of either coincidentally or unintentionally with the Battle of the Frozen Waste.

Word to the wise: never leave reading a game for tomorrow if you can do it today. Saves you from looking stupid.

dunno why you are being so hard on yourself. there's LOTS of material to read here. I try to read much of it, but I certainly fall behind; and I certainly don't expect everyone to read my stuff, either. heck, some people are going to look and say "surrealist artists fighting each other with symbolism? PLONK! not interested!"

and that's ok.

[Eero Tuovinen]

dunno why you are being so hard on yourself. there's LOTS of material to read here. I try to read much of it, but I certainly fall behind; and I certainly don't expect everyone to read my stuff, either. heck, some people are going to look and say "surrealist artists fighting each other with symbolism? PLONK! not interested!"

Don't mind me, it's just my dry european humour. I'm counting Humble Mythologies, Wyrd and Court of 9 Chambers so far as games that the Battle of the Frozen Waste resembles. None of them were in my mind when designing. I'll probably realise after posting the finished version tomorrow that I have a d20 mechanic there too. There's some things I definitely don't like with this instinctual game in a week business. No time to really think about what I'm doing. Probably everyone else is scrambling just as much, I just complain more ;) And anyway, I've been meaning to check C9C out but never have had time when I've remembered it.

But, back to the topic at hand. As I understand it, Eyebeams is talking simply about the instinctual level of effects different mechanics produce. You know, when we talk about writing a fictionalized play account as a prelude to actual design, to get focus on what you strive for? What if a designer concentrated on detailing the feel of the mechanics on a sub-verbal level, instead of concentrating on actual play. How it feels to get this bonus here, how it feels to make the attack roll. Non-verbalised mechanical content, essentially.

Now, I try to do this when I can. With The Fall of Atlantis and the Dawn of Human History I wrote yesterday I added a nifty mechanic of building die pyramids (not 3-D, a table arrangement) largely because it tied to interesting mechanical implications while giving the players something satisfying to do. Arrange your dice into pyramids, take dice from the top, do you want one big or many small ones, that kind of thing. Pyramids are fun, I'm hoping they are even funnier than penguins ;)

[Lxndr]

I don't think of myself as "Gamist" really.  In practice I mostly waffle between Nar and Sim, or so those who have observed me have let on (and it is an observational theory).  

But I LOVE playing with numbers, using resolution systems, the whole shebang.  Games without any numbers at all make me feel uneasy, like a landlubber tossed aboard a ship at sea.  I like Nobilis more than Amber for exactly this reason - Nobilis has NUMBERS, and a way to play with them.

For some gamers anyway (me, obviously, included) I think there can be something aesthetic to the dicerolls, the manipulation of bonuses and penalties, and all the rest of that stuff.  What you're describing sounds pretty close to, I suppose, pure "Exploration of System", if you had to put it in the GNS model at all.

(In fact, that's where Exalted disappointed me - the dice rolls and stuff look great on paper, but it turned out to be such a let-down in play, promising much more than they deliver.  At least with convention games.)

Anyway, I'm not sure about the whole training issue and stuff, but I do enjoy the aesthetics of dice.  I'm not sure I like what YOU like in the aesthetics of dice (i.e. task resolution, etc.) but I appreciate them myself.  Heck, I created a game using a roulette wheel in part 'cause of the psychological aesthetics of betting and spinning.  Dice are just another part of that.

[eyebeams]

Yeah, that's definitely the kind of thing I'm talking about. Even though it's a good trick for focus to divorce it from the story, the relationship is definitely there -- but I'm afraid too much talk about it will muddy concrete discussion. I'm not sure.

I think that considering this end really lets us evaluate certain games. Take the Palladium system for instance. There are lots of problems with it -- lots and lots of problems -- but the aesthetics of dice rolling seem to be very appealing. Rifts has three kids of rolls:

Combat
Damage
Skills
(There are saving throws, too, but I have never seen them used in a game.)

Combat has the action/roll parity I'm talking about (one roll, one shot, parry or dodge). People like to roll for damage, most of the time. Skills are a simple roll under, which, given the combat focus of many games, seems to work fine. Instaed of dallying with complex results, the player gets the instant gratification of a yes/no answer.

The question now becomes: Can we make a game with the same dice rolling feel but without the dodgy structure beneath it? Wouldn;t that be a cool game for combat oriented roleplaying? Maybe.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I kind of get the idea behind paying attention to the aestetics of play. This is why whenever play-by-mail ever comes up I always bring up De Profundis. It's a play by mail game where the characters communicate by writing letters to each other. Other PBM games are fighting against the method of communication to try, as best it can, to replicate a tabletop play experience. It's an uphill battle IMO

At some point you need to take a step back and see what you are trying to accomplish with the game and then see what stuff is contrary of contradictory to that goal.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

There's several things we're talking about here, but the common thread being the joy of using the system itself.  Some of the factors include:

-Tactile("I like rolling a handful of dice")
-Gambling/Suspense("I like not knowing how it's going to turn out!"
-Player Skill/Mastery of System("I like the fact that my strategies and skill make a difference in the performance of my character")
-"The Shopping List"("I like trying to figure out what feats/spells/kewl powers I want to get, and how they work together")

Chris

[Callan S.]

So, do we mean being entertained by the tool itself, rather than just being entertained by what the tool can make?

Sort of like being fascinated at a switch army knifes construction, or in watching a clock work devices innards rather than what the device does once wound.

I think the analogy can stretch to each of Bankuei's points fairly easily.

If this is the appreciation type, what CA does it come under?