Topic: Plato on Polysided Dice
Started by: Jonathan Walton
Started on: 9/16/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/16/2003 at 1:38am, Jonathan Walton wrote:
Plato on Polysided Dice
Don't know exactly how I'd go about using this, but I thought I'd pass this neat bit of info onto those who might be ignorant (as I was until this week). It's a system just waiting to happen:
The Platonic Solids
The Platonic Solids are polyhedra whose faces are identical regular polygons. Only five regular solids are possible: cube (d6), tetrahedron (d4), octahedron (d8), icosahedron (d20), and dodecahedron (d12). Plato associates four of the Platonic Solid with the four elements. He writes,
We must proceed to distribute the figures [the solids] we have just described between fire, earth, water, and air... Let us assign the cube to earth, for it is the most immobile of the four bodies and most retentive of shape... The least mobile of the remaining figures (icosahedron) to water... The most mobile (tetrahedron) to fire... and the intermediate (octahedron) to air.
But there are five regular polyhedra and only four elements. Plato writes,
There still remained a fifth construction, which the god used for embroidering the constellations on the whole heaven.
Additionally, since the polyhedra associated with the elements of fire, water, and air are all made up of equilateral triangles, the triangles can recombine to form other elements. For example, a d20 might become 2d8 + d4, dividing the same number of sides/triangles over 3 solids. Cubes and dodecahedrons are incompatible with this system and so where thought to be eternal and unchanging (like the earth and stars themselves).
Cool as hell, huh? So who wants to make the first Platonic roleplaying game?
On 9/16/2003 at 2:43am, Matt Snyder wrote:
RE: Plato on Polysided Dice
Get in line, pal. ;) See Nine Worlds, sans polyhedrons.
On 9/16/2003 at 3:12am, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Plato on Polysided Dice
Oh, are we going to turn this thread into a "Greeker than thou" debate? I'll see your Nine Worlds and raise you Argonauts :)
On a more serious note, I find it ironic that the Platonic solids, because they're evenly balanced forms, turned out to be the shapes used for polysided dice. The only one missing is the d10, which is the only one that doesn't have equilaterals for faces. If there hasn't been a Suppressed Transmission column written about this yet, I'd be astounded.
On 9/16/2003 at 3:17am, ethan_greer wrote:
Re: Plato on Polysided Dice
Jonathan Walton wrote: The least mobile of the remaining figures (icosahedron) to water... The most mobile (tetrahedron) to fire...
Weird - that seems backwards to me. I mean, a 20-sider is a lot more likely to roll around than a 4-sider, isn't it?
On 9/16/2003 at 9:09am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Plato on Polysided Dice
Jonathan Walton wrote: So who wants to make the first Platonic roleplaying game?
There was a thread on RPG.net about this some months ago which didn't go much anywhere. It might be of interest to people here.
On 9/19/2003 at 10:08pm, mrteapot wrote:
RE: Re: Plato on Polysided Dice
Jonathan Walton wrote: Cool as hell, huh? So who wants to make the first Platonic roleplaying game?
Four Colors Al Fresco has different sized dice that represent the effects of different planets on your character's acts, astrologically. Somehow, this seems like it could be related in there somehow.
The system would have to be kinda different from other games. You couldn't just have stats for the five elements with a roll over or under technique, as different stats would have different dice, and thus probabilities.
Perhaps the character is rated in various skills (eg, my philosopher character has Debate at 20) which can be divided into multiple different dice, representing how you use the skill in a given instant. Eg, my philosopher character decides to use Air to analyze the flaws in his opponents argument (2d8) and to attack the character of his opponent using Fire (1d4), while his opponent might try to play off the audience's sympathy (1d20). Opponents then make opposed rolls for each element that was used (you are assumed to have a 0 if you didn't use your a given element).
Thus, you can win with one method while losing in another way. At which point, the GM and player hash out how that worked out, exactly. Perhaps some more complicated resolution system, particularly if you want some clarity for combat.
I also wouldn't know how Earth and Quintessence would fit in there, but it could be figured out.
On 9/19/2003 at 11:30pm, CplFerro wrote:
RE: Plato on Polysided Dice
Dear Mr. Walton,
Any Classically based RPG must first account for the form from which the five Solids are extracted. Namely, the Celestial Sphere itself. So add a cat's eye alley to your dice bag in its honour, and figure out how to usefully roll the d1.
Then, proceed to use the d1, d4, d6, d8, d12, and d20 to metaphorically solve the Parmenides Paradox. If you can do that, you'll have a Classically fine game premise-cum-pedagogical aid on your hands.
Cpl Ferro
On 9/26/2003 at 9:21pm, mjk wrote:
RE: Plato on Polysided Dice
Pointless note...
When you roll 2d6+2, you are actually rolling 2d6+2d1, a Platonic RPG would make this explicit, and give it some kind of in-game meaning. Giving in-game meaning to a d1 is no more (or no less) difficult than giving one to a d6.
Perhaps, you could have several alternative ways for making each roll, so for example instead of an d20, you could roll 2d8+d4, and in addition to the sum being meaningful, each individual die had a chance of a bonus or a penalty, and the actual bonus or penalty would vary depending on which die caused it.
In this system, 2d8+d4 would have better probability spread, and d20 a lower chance of a special penalty. Swapping die to d1 would allow avoiding these penalties and bonuses altogether. Changing die you roll would also allow you to choose which penalties to risk and which bonuses to go for. Fire bonus obviously would be useful for casting a Fireball, for instance.
Making a mechanic this complex worthfile... I won't even try.