Are Polyhedrals More "Fun"?

[Keith Sears]

I know that this may be a very basic question, but even a basic choice in mechanics can make a large difference in how a game feels when it's played. Currently, I am using an odd/even dice pool system using d6s. It's given me some problems, so I have come up with a possible alternative using polyhedrals from d4 to d12. The die rolling system would be similar to Deadlands.

What is your opinion of polyhedrals? Do they feel more "fun" than using a single die type? I know there are hundreds of logical reasons that say it doesn't matter, but I am looking for an emotional gut reaction.

[szilard]

In general, I prefer dice-based games to use a single die type... preferably d6 or d10.

In part, this is because I don't have huge piles of dice and most of my dice are either d6s or d10s. Having to scrounge for a d8 or something can be a pain.

I also dislike 'rolling' the d4.

Stuart

[James V. West]

My gut reaction is I like all kinds of dice. I like polyhedrals. And the d4-d12 range offer a perfect 2-point step from one to the next (why isnt there a d14, d16, and d18 commonly available?).

Getting your hands on various dice is not hard, but it can cause less-than-enthusiastic potential players to not buy your game if they dont' already have the dice they need. However, I would not let that influence my design. If polyhedrals make the most sense to you, use them.

I found some great d4s that are oblong and kind of cylindrical. They roll like a charm, negating the old clumsy pyramids. You can also get other sizes in this form.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm with Stuart. Stick to a single type, and d10 or d6 if possible.

What was the problem with the even/odd system?

Mike

[Alan]

I'm with Stuart. Stick to a single type, and d10 or d6 if possible.

What was the problem with the even/odd system?

Mike

I really hate systems that use more than two kinds of dice.  D&D is a case in point, where one has to hunt for a variety of dice, of varying numbers.  Ugh.

I also prefer d10 or d6 - though d20 aren't bad for some forms of resolution.   Two dice systems, with one type for resolution and one for effect are fine too.

[Keith Sears]

I'm with Stuart. Stick to a single type, and d10 or d6 if possible.

What was the problem with the even/odd system?

As you probably know, I'm talking about the Luna system. There isn't anything really "wrong" with the sytem. My only issue with it would be making certain that one Level of Play doesn't easily slop into the other. I'm working on some rules that will take care of that, though.

I guess what has bothered me is some of the comments I've gotten when I've playtested some of the earlier versions of Luna. Things like "too binary", and "I like to play with all my dice" came up. None of these are logical arguements, but are simple gut reactions. I've learned to listen to gut reactions, since they seem to affect the "WoW" factor of a game. So naturally, it got me to wondering if I was on the right track or not.

And that led me to asking that question. I wanted a wider sampling of opinion to draw from than dedicated D&D players.

[Jake Norwood]

Just pitching in...

I find d6's to be dull and mundane in handling. They don't roll too purty and they're so...normal. I have lots because lots of games call for it, but I don't think that d6's offer any advantage other than availability...and we're discussing what's available to *gamers* here. I know this is opinion, but the question is about fun, and I find tactile sensation to be part of it.

Jake

[M. J. Young]

I think you'll find gamers split into two camps, and probably pretty evenly:

[*]Stick to one kind of die so I don't have to ask what to roll next.[*]I've got all these dice, and I want to be able to use them.[/list:u]That being the case, it's really up to you to decide what you want to do with it.

The only other issue I see at this point is barriers to entry. Multiverser uses a D30, and only partly because it worked well mechanically. E. R. Jones informed me when I started working on the system that it would use a D30 because he liked them and wanted a game in which he could use them. But a lot of people have passed on the game because they don't have the unusual die. (It is not used very often, and can be played around, but it's still there.) In much the same manner, if you're talking about designing a game which you hope will be played as an introductory game for people who have never heard of role playing games, polyhedral dice are often an obstacle for this--unless you're planning to put them in the box or use some alternate system (chits were popular around 1980), you're requiring them to get this unusual equipment that they can't pick up at either Barnes & Noble (where a lot of games are sold) or Toys R Us (which no longer carries any, but will be one of the first places people think of for "games"). Since people usually have D6's around, and can buy them just about anywhere (even dollar stores have them in batches), if you're looking to reach that audience you want to avoid sending them out on a snipe--er, dice--hunt.

On the other hand, most gamers will have at least one of each major die type, and quite a few have boxes or bags of dice of all types, so that's probably a minor factor in most cases.

Me? I don't care. I play both kinds of games. If a game sticks to one die type, I sometimes wonder if it would have worked better if it had varied the dice (particularly if it uses the same die type in different mechanics), but generally if it works, I'm happy.

--M. J. Young

[Jason Lee]

I'd want to know how important low search and handling time is to you.  Using different types of dice will slow resolution down (counting how many dice you have, reaching across the table because Bob has the two more d12's you need, etc).  The Deadlands system is painfully slow in my opinion (I think the game could have been better served by some kind of 2d6 craps based mechanic...but you didn't ask for a Deadlands critique).

I'm in the single die type camp - purely for speed reasons.

(Ya know, if had a system where you always rolled 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, and 1d12 that'd run just as quick as most dice pool systems - just an idle thought)

[greyorm]

More dice! More Dice!! MORE DICE!!!
[bangs fists on table]

I love polyhedrals, especially lots of different ones for different tasks and such. I really don't like systems that consist of only one type of die...totally boooooring (yes, I'm well aware that Sorcerer only uses one type of die...bite me).

But, in general, the more different-sided dice, the better!
More dice! More Dice!! MORE DICE!!!
[bangs fists on table]

Actually, after a moment's thought, I think maybe I can even get by with different colored dice of the same type...but there must be purpose to the color! Or it's meaningless!

[Brian Leybourne]

And the d4-d12 range offer a perfect 2-point step from one to the next (why isnt there a d14, d16, and d18 commonly available?).

Try and make a spherical die with those numbers of faces and you'll discover the underlying problem.

For my part, I used to be a multi-die kind of guy, but these days I think I prefer my games to use a single die type, probably D10. No real reason for preferring the D10, except that it has a larger range of results than a D6 (well, duh) which is nice when you're working out what results mean, and it's more intuitive for players to work out probabilities in their heads; 10% per pip instead of having to think in terms of 16.66% or 12.5% or 8.33% or whatever.

Brian.

[talysman]

I think there's a certain appealing, almost fetishistic joy about collecting and using many kinds of dice. I know I like dice: I have a set of completely spherical d6s and a couple of those elongated d10s. I have no reason for having those particular dice, other than I like them.

however, people are turned off by irrational dice systems. you will notice that most people don't have any antagonism towards specific dice, other than hating hard-to-get dice or (in my case) hating d4s. show someone a system that just uses multiple dice types for no other reason than "hey, we have all these dice", though, and most people will hate it. I think this is why many people prefer single-die type games: because restricting game mechanics to a single type of die helps the designer focus on making a coherent game (although it's no guarantee...)

but there are coherent ways of using more than one die type in a game. for example, what about using d6 in all cases for damage/effectiveness and d20 for resolution? or games that give you four or five dice types that you assign to specific attributes?

I was once toying with an idea about using d6, d8, d10, and d12 in a game this way: each player in a conflict rolls two dice, one for attack and one for defense. each player must select attack/defense dice so that the total number of sides add to 18 -- in other words, you can have four possible combos:

[*]d6 attack, d12 defense
[*]d8 attack, d10 defense
[*]d10 attack, d8 defense
[*]d12 attack, d6 defense
[/list:u]

it's simple: you want to roll higher on attack than your opponent rolls on defense, but you also want to roll higher on your defense than your opponent rolls on attack. the combo you select indicates whether you are attacking aggressively or defending warily.

that, to me, would be a coherent use of multiple dice types in a single game. it shouldn't offend too many people.

[Mike Holmes]

I have a theory as to why people don't like d4s.

They are the only die type with acute angles across their largest dimesions. D6s and d8s have right angles, and all other dice have obtuse angles across their largest dimension. When at rest, no mass overhangs the edges of the side of he d4 that touches the surface of the table (d6s, of course do not either, but come close). Which means that d4s look like they can't "roll". They seem less random, and in some ways are.

The solution to this problem was implemented in the Mayfair boardgame, "Road to the White House". Included with that game are several d8s labeled 1-4 twice. Similar to how very old d20s were labeled 0-9 twice. These are much more fun. The only problem with them is that if you are also playing with d8s then  it's not easy to identify them one from another. Color-coding would fix that, however. I wish that the industry would move away from the pyrimidal d4 to the "d8" d4.

On the subject of d14 and d16, this is easy to accomplish. There are lots of dice that are created by simply putting one multi-sided pyramid on top of another. The d24 is a silly example, but exists. The d30 is more common, but also a novelty for the most part (Multiverser play aside). But, as it happens the d10 is also this sort of design. So all you have to do is to put one seven sided pyramid atop another, and voila, you have your d14. You could even make a d12 or d20 this way if you wanted to be consistent. d8s are, of couse this way, too, but also happen to be regular polyhedrons.

Again, you'd want to color code your di-pyrimidal dice to differentiate. I'm pretty sure the d14 and d16 are going to look pretty similar at a glance.

And lastly any die is possible by using the method that they use for the d100 (the one with 100 numbers on it). Just dimple the shpere evenly with exactly the number of "sides" you want, and distribute them evenly across the surface.

Has anyone seen the d6 with all different size sides?

It should be lost on nobody that the dice that do exist are based mostly on the recular polyhedrons, probably for esthetic reasons. But these have all been used up with 4, 6, 8, 12, and 20 (though I think there are some larger possibilities).

Mike

[Valamir]

And even dice with odd sizes can be made using the cylinder pattern which you roll like an old wooden #2 pencil (we used to shoot craps in study hall with a pair of suitably marked #2 pencils).

I'd love to get a set of d5s, d7s, and d9s made like this.

[Le Joueur]

I have a theory as to why people don't like d4s.

Me too; anyone ever step on one?  (The yellow d4 that came with the blue-box Dungeons & Dragons didn't even have blunted ends; yowch!)

...In the Mayfair boardgame, "Road to the White House". Included with that game are several d8s labeled 1-4 twice. Similar to how very old d20s were labeled 0-9 twice.

You could do the same with d12s (1-4 thrice) and d20s (1-4 five times); color-coding is a good idea.

On the subject of d14 and d16, this is easy to accomplish. There are lots of dice that are created by simply putting one multi-sided pyramid on top of another.

Another way would be to use any platonic solid that has more surfaces than necessary and blank (or decorate) the superfluous sides.  (This is how we home-brew roll weird numbers; roll a higher dice and ignore 'impossible' results.)

Has anyone seen the d6 with all different size sides?

I like the 'one-sided die' version (spherical) with the 'six-sided cavity' inside containing a ball bearing so it stops on a 'side.'

It should be lost on nobody that the dice that do exist are based mostly on the regular polyhedrons, probably for esthetic reasons. But these have all been used up with 4, 6, 8, 12, and 20 (though I think there are some larger possibilities).

Nope.  The definition of a regular polyhedron is one with convex, regular polygonal faces.  The thirty-sided is therefore not a regular polyhedron (the 'diamond' shaped faces are not regular polygons).  As a little mental imaging lesson, you can follow how these shapes are limited:

Going by 'gathered to a vertex' (to a 'point'), you cannot have a flat-faced polyhedron where only two sides meet at a vertex.  Likewise, enough faces to create a planar surface around a vertex is not convex.  (Think of three regular hexagons together; it makes...flat hex paper.)

Start with the equilateral (or regular) triangle:
Three together forms the point of a tetrahedron (four-sider).

Four together forms an octahedron (eight-sider).

Five together forms an icosahedron (you'll have to trust me or count 'em; twenty-sider).

Six together form a flat hexagon and aren't convex.[/list:u]
Try the square:
Three together forms a cube or hexahedron (six-sider).

Four together forms a flat square and aren't convex; hey, it's graph paper![/list:u]
Lastly, there's the regular pentagon:
Three together forms the dodecahedron (twelve-sider).

Four together forms a...well, it's kinda 'saddle-shaped,' suffice to say, not convex.[/list:u]
I've already eliminated regular hexagons and trust me, more sides simply drive you into 'saddle-shapes' at 'three together.'[/list:u]So that's three with triangles, one with squares, and one with pentagons, for a total of the five classic 'platonic solids.'  (I love this exercise; I'm so good at explaining it I've even done it literally in my sleep.)

And even dice with odd sizes can be made using the cylinder pattern....

I've also seen some where the 'barrel sides' were interlocking triangles.  (Think twenty-sider with the 'top and bottom' pentagonal pyramids shrunk and nearly flattened, the other ten sides stretched until you get the 'cigar shape.')

I've seen the new stacking game, Nak Nak, which uses a four-sider that is molded to look like a string of six-siders glued together.  Without the serious rounding of the edges, I don't see 'barrel dice' rolling well until you get into more than six sides, though.  And that's probably bound up in the reason why people don't seem to like four-siders; they are hard to roll 'enough' to get a 'comfortably random' result.  (We sorta 'flipped' ours until one among us perfected a technique to roll whichever number he chose.)

Fang Langford

p. s. I'd have to say that the 'like' factor probably rises from the tactile sense of 'holding your fate in your hands.'