Are Polyhedrals More "Fun"?

[Walt Freitag]

The problem with the cylinder method for odd-sided dice is that an edge rather than a flat side lands topmost. This could be addressed by suitable markings, but it adds just enough inelegance that as far as I know no one's bothered to try to manufacture and promote them.

There are many polyhedra that are not technically regular, but can still make provably fair dice because all the faces have the same shape and the same angles relative to adjacent faces; the d30 is an example. Unfortunately most of them have too many sides to be useful. For instance, you can make a fair d24 by slightly stellating a d6 or d8, or a fair d60 by slightly stellating a d12 or d20.

I like unusual asymmetrical dice when the game design doesn't require them to be fair. A few years ago a group I was part of was commissioned to design a small collection of Wallace and Gromit board games in the form of a pop-up book. Encouraged to include custom plastic items in the game, we invented a d5 shaped like a wedge of cheese. (It can land with either of two flat sides up, or either of two sloping sides up, or edge up; the holes in the cheese serve as pips.) Unfortunately the company didn't get the license they expected, and the games were never published.

Hog Wild (if I recall the name correctly) is essentially a dice game without numbers, based on the five stable positions a certain plastic pig can land in, with scoring based on combinations of varying likelihood.

For role playing games I have no strong preference for standard vs. nonstandard or one versus many types.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Hog Wild (if I recall the name correctly) is essentially a dice game without numbers, based on the five stable positions a certain plastic pig can land in, with scoring based on combinations of varying likelihood.

Also called Pigmania, Pass the Pigs, and other colorful names. My favorite position is the Double Leaning Jowler worth, IIRC 25 points.

Also see Cosmic Wimpout and Throwing Stones or any collectable dice game, for that matter for more unusual ways to use dice.

Mike

[Valamir]

The problem with the cylinder method for odd-sided dice is that an edge rather than a flat side lands topmost. This could be addressed by suitable markings, but it adds just enough inelegance that as far as I know no one's bothered to try to manufacture and promote them.

Actually its really not that hard of a design work around.  You simply have to bevel off the middle of the cylinder (basically like rotating the middle section 1/2 a face).

The ends provide the physical contact with the table which land edge up as you point out.  The numbers are read off of the middle section which has a face up.

[Mike Holmes]

Or what I've seen is that people just number the edges. Not pretty but simple and functional. I think it was a seven sided die that I saw.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Most gamers have computers these days. Many have laptops, even.

Aren't dice a bit anachronistic?  :-)

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

Computers are too heavy to throw easily, and they have irregular shapes that skew the odds. You might get okay results with a closed laptop, though you'd have to choose one with an even weight distribution through its thickness. But then you only have two sides.

Ralph, that's a good solution for cylinder-shaped odd dice. (I was thinking about doing roughtly the same thing using the rounded end-cap part of the die.) But I don't know if it's all that die-like in the end; it's more like a novel roller thingie. Be fun to have, though.

- Walt

[M. J. Young]

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

Is it really so convoluted as that?

D4s are hard to pick up, because they narrow at the top. If you have greasy fingers from potato chips or pizza, you'll never get it in your hand without some trick of the fingers.

They're also difficult to read; in fact, there are two different ways of marking them--some put the numbers in the points at the top, others along the edge at the bottom. Whichever one you see first, it will take you a moment to figure out how to read it (every other die is immediately obvious), and then it will also take you a moment to figure out how to read the other kind.

I've got a prototype of a d4 which elongates the triangles into interlocking isosceles, such that when rolled it falls as a ramp with one side on top. I don't have the resources to produce it.

Back in high school I remember coming across a formula for determining the probability that an object would be stable on a given side. My uncle (a mathematician not familiar with the formula, which I have been unable since to locate) suggested that dice of odd numbered sides could be created in a sort of pyramid arrangement in which the size of the base was calculated to result in the die landing upright with the same probable frequency as any of the sides. Thus for a d7, you would have a pyramid with a hexagonal base, sides numbered one through six (which would be "on top", because when the die fell over the even number of sides would provide the top as flat), and if it managed to stand on its base, which it would do one time in seven, the result would be seven. Not having been able to track down that magical stability formula, I've never pursued what the height to base ratios would have to be. (I was not a gamer in high school, had never seen polyhedral dice, and so didn't recognize the value of the formula then.)

--M. J. Young

[Keith Sears]

Whoa! A lot of good opinions intermingled with "dice theory." It's helped me come to the decision to stick with Luna's odd/even dice pool mechanic with d6s, and add on the option to use d10s.

Thanks, guys!

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, that's right, you can't use just any die, because of the ones and sixes rules. So, for d10s, would you use 1-2 and 9-0 for exceptional rolls? Or just 1 and 0? If the latter, then d8 would be as reasonable.

What I'd do, to get the best of all worlds, is to point out that you can use any die and look at the maximum and minimums for exceptional results. The choice to use any particular die says something about how wild the GM wants the game to be. d4 is a lot wilder than a d6, and d10 is a lot less wild.

Make d6 the defaut (as the most common die and a reasonable option), but just point out to GMs how the changes in die choice affect the outcomes.

Mike

[Keith Sears]

Ah, that's right, you can't use just any die, because of the ones and sixes rules. So, for d10s, would you use 1-2 and 9-0 for exceptional rolls? Or just 1 and 0? If the latter, then d8 would be as reasonable.

What I had in mind is that 1s would act as described in Luna 0.2. The 6 would be replaced by the highest roll on the die.

What I'd do, to get the best of all worlds, is to point out that you can use any die and look at the maximum and minimums for exceptional results. The choice to use any particular die says something about how wild the GM wants the game to be. d4 is a lot wilder than a d6, and d10 is a lot less wild.

That's pretty much what I had in mind...and was also the reason behind this thread in the first place.

In my opinion, the success of a roleplaying game isn't necessarily due to how innovative, logical, or well-made it is. It's due to the emotional response it's able to invoke in the player...that indefinable "WoW" factor. Little things, like the choice of dice, can affect this. For example, I've personally wanted to create a diceless system, but every time I have brought up the subject to a fellow gamer, they get this look on their face as though they had just sucked on a lemon. On the opposite side of the coin (or is that a d2?) I've had more than one conversation with Lou Zocchi of Gamescience. The man is dying to have someone design a game that uses a d16, or some other nonstandard die, because he has designed a number of nonstandard polyhedrals. I wouldn't consider using them because they would be difficult for most people to acquire. A huge turn-off.

[greyorm]

I've had more than one conversation with Lou Zocchi of Gamescience. The man is dying to have someone design a game that uses a d16, or some other nonstandard die, because he has designed a number of nonstandard polyhedrals. I wouldn't consider using them because they would be difficult for most people to acquire. A huge turn-off.

Unless they're included with the game...
Seriously, you have an "in" with this guy, and certainly you might be able to strike a two-way beneficial deal to have those weird dice included in a game you're selling. Assuming you were developing such.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread)

[Keith Sears]

Unless they're included with the game...
Seriously, you have an "in" with this guy, and certainly you might be able to strike a two-way beneficial deal to have those weird dice included in a game you're selling. Assuming you were developing such.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread)

I actually don't have an "in" with him. He was giving me a sales pitch, pure and simple.

[greyorm]

My bad. Your statement that you had "had more than one conversation with" him about it implied to me more than a simple sales pitch.

[Mike Holmes]

In any case, anyone can catch up with the Colonel at the Gamescience booth if you need to discuss dice.

The real question is cost. Given that they'd be special ordered, and need to have special packaging, I think that it's problematic. Still, it's a cool idea.

Mike

[Keith Sears]

My bad. Your statement that you had "had more than one conversation with" him about it implied to me more than a simple sales pitch.

Well, I shouldn't have made it sound so tawdry. I've had two or three conversations with him about dice. The first one was something of a sales pitch in the Duncan Donuts in Milwaukee during Gen Con. Another one was just last year, and this time I was asking him about his dice since I am on the Board of Directors of the Game Publishers Association and I was gathering information about custom dice for the members. Lou doesn't have a web site, so I had to see about getting a catalog that I was going to publish electronically on the GPA's information base.