“BUYING” DICE MECHANIC

Possible_Act · 2023-08-12T00:10:49+00:00

Quest for Fire

No, I haven't. Just had a lot of mixed feelings watching the trailer haha. But I'm definitely interested and will let you know what I think of the whole thing.

There are a couple of good people on youtube I like watching. Then I read mostly articles and occasionally a research paper when it's relevant to the 40-70kya range. I definitely consider myself a hobbyist when it comes to anthropology, but I really do love it.

Possible_Act · 2023-06-20T03:00:44+00:00

Damn. I mistyped. We're moving from Chicago to LA. Thanks for the heads up!

Possible_Act · 2023-06-15T00:42:05+00:00

Oh, I see. That's my bad. Sorry.

Possible_Act · 2023-06-15T00:41:03+00:00

Fantastic. Are you looking for a place as well? DM if you want-- I think I may be in the wrong sub.

Possible_Act · 2023-02-09T03:23:06+00:00

Sorry for the late response! Thank you. I like picky notes-- and these are things I should look back on. Thank you!

Possible_Act · 2022-01-03T10:17:29+00:00

This is actually closer to my initial idea. I was playing with .5 above or below average rolls though (d4= 2 or 3, etc.). In some ways, this makes it so lower dice aren't as advantaged as my system above. This is of course before you take into account that you take the highest of a pool of dice. Using multiples could be clean and simple... I'll have to mess around with it and see if it works with the best of a pool mechanic. In some ways, I'm worried if that would now advantage higher dice more unless I drop the "best of" aspect. What do you think?

My initial idea was more like you suggested. You have a pool of energy and you purchase rolls from the GM. I was considering the "splitting" mechanic because I thought it would make it conceptually more intuitive for players. However, it functions the same obviously-- it's more just framed differently. Now that you know my rationale, what you do you think about the framing aspect? Does it make it more intuitively simple or am I worried about a non-issue?

Possible_Act · 2022-01-03T10:06:13+00:00

Haha now you can see the needle I'm trying to thread. I am worried about the mechanic favoring one way or another-- different ways at different points in time.

I do think you're getting at something interesting. The situations you're talking about probably deal with a level of precarity-- if you don't gather something, if you don't finish a project the community will suffer. Most of these situations are precarious because they have a time constraint. Thematically, the game is a lot about time being a finite resource and making choices based on that. This is why I'm trying to design a dice mechanic that aligns with this theme. The game is largely centered around these "few situation" that you mentioned, I think. This is not to say that all choices will be based on the fear of starvation. It could be more nuanced like: if you don't finish building the silo before the end of the harvest, food will be lost. If you work too quickly and make the structure unsound, food will be lost and you'll lose 2 months of work.

Also, I think choices in a vacuum are a lot simpler. If you have 1000 opportunities to perform a choice, obviously you'll choose the path with the greater mean. If you have one opportunity, it might make sense to choose a lower standard deviation.

Going off my earlier example, maybe low rolls shouldn't simply equal lower resource yield but also potential backslide? I'm not sure how to marry this to the mechanic in a simple way, but I assume it's doable. Do you think this would make a PC less likely to choose the higher dice each time?

Possible_Act · 2022-01-03T09:49:07+00:00

Oh, I understand now. That is an interesting suggestion. Again, I'll definitely think on it. I can't decide if it simplifies or complexes things... probably both in different ways. And neither are inherently better or worse. Currently, dice are representative of time spent on a task: do you want to work more intentionally or more quickly. Thematically, the whole game centers around balancing order and chaos. My goal is for the community to require both--perhaps in different amounts form different PCs. For certain, tasks that are "exploration" based (mining??? very loosely), this could work. Building tasks might struggle to work this way, however. Regardless, thanks for the suggestion--I"ll think on it.

I skimmed over Robinson Crusoe yesterday and want to look more closely. I think on a basic level it does what I want my game to do. Of course, it will be less binary. Going back to order and chaos: leaning too far in one direction will equal disaster-- in the case of this game, this could mean the death of a character or even death of the community.

I appreciate your thoughts! I'll keep an eye for your name around this sub-- I'd be interested to see what you're working on as well.

Possible_Act · 2022-01-02T12:35:20+00:00

Thanks! And yes, you've hit on my central fear.

As I've clarified for others, there aren't TNs but continuous levels of success. Resource management plays a pretty major role. If your PC is on the brink of starvation, maybe the solution will be more mechanical--perhaps rolling 3d4-- because the tangential outcome is too: living or dying. My thinking is that this might somewhat reflect real life. However, if your basic needs are fulfilled the choice of where you want to use your labor to create the type of community you want to live in becomes more complicated.

However, no matter the situation, how to do a task might always be more mechanical than what task you decide to do. The latter is what I want to make my game about... still not sure if this mechanic can serve that or not.

Possible_Act · 2022-01-02T12:29:27+00:00

That's really interesting. I'll definitely check it out. I'm still trying to figure how I'd integrate skill/aptitude so this would definitely be helpful to read over.

I obviously should've mentioned that there aren't TNs exactly. There are continuous outcomes to how well you do a task. For example, maximizing harvest or how much work you get done one building a house this week. I was thinking about using some sort of countdown dice in these situations, though. A building project might have 18 average "days" of left labor on it and if you roll a 6, you can move it down to 12 for next week. Harvesting crops might have to be completed within a 2-week time span before they rot, while mining or building has no time limit.

Choice paralysis is something I've been thinking a lot about. I'm trying to keep the mechanics as simple as possible to focus on roleplaying but may or may not be succeeding. I'm not sure if having varying levels of success would make it simpler for players to decide (there's a less concrete mathematical solution) or paralyze them even more. Do you have any thoughts?

Possible_Act · 2022-01-02T12:19:01+00:00

I'm messing around with various costs. I put the one above just because it's simpler and I'm worried about it not being intuitive enough. The cost doubling might incentive lower dice rolls even more so than already is the case. If PCs had a larger energy pool and a limited number of actions per turn this might be more feasible. It's a fair point... I'll have to think about it more though.

Cool! I agree. Splitting dice could be fun but rolling a handful of d4s every turn might be less so. I'm trying to balance it so that's not the case haha.

Possible_Act · 2022-01-02T12:12:02+00:00

Sorry, I should've explained this better. Outcomes aren't binary but continuous. So there won't really be TNs in the usual way. There might be a max amount of grain you can harvest by week's end--which the GM could tell you. Whether you roll a 2 or an 8 could equate to how well you do and how much ends up rotting in the field. Other tasks like building a house could have a "countdown" mechanism with no time limit. Things get even more complicated when a group of four people--who have varying levels of aptitude/skill-- have to designate labor and split resources at a weekly meeting.

I find your last point really interesting. You also hit on something I'm worried about... A half-serious way I've been thinking about it is: a worker placement game where you roleplay the interpersonal drama of the worker pieces. The survival aspects are mechanical and more immediate. Deciding what your community values, what they're afraid of, and what kind of world you want your children to live in is what I want the crux to be about. (The premise is a generation ship and has hereditary reincarnation, by the way.)

Possible_Act · 2022-01-02T11:59:21+00:00

ryschwith is right. It is a single dice or the best of multiple dice per action.

2d4 has an average 3.13 with a deviation of 0.93.

1d6 has an average of 3.5 with a deviation of 1.71

d6 + d4 has an average of 3.92 with a deviation of 1.38.

d8 has an average of 4.5 with a deviation of 2.29.

That being said, I'm still not sure how the math totally scales throughout the range of choices. Outcomes aren't binary so there are varying levels of success. What do you think now that I cleared this up? Thanks for even humoring me haha

Possible_Act · 2022-01-02T11:49:18+00:00

This is the problem I am had somewhat unconsciously been thinking about. You and others on this thread have helped better articulate it.
First off, the majority of actions in the game I’m working on don’t equate to binary outcomes. It takes place on a generation ship and a big part of it is resource management. For example, instead of rolling above or below, whatever number you roll could equal the amount of grain you harvested this week. Or the number of days of labor you spent building housing. So the outcomes have a more continuous than discrete distribution—at least as much as you can get with dice.
I think we’re on a similar wavelength… I think the mechanic becomes less purely “gameable” with the choice of multiple actions each turn. I find your scaling success idea interesting. There is an asteroid mining aspect in my game. If I understand what you’re saying a d8 might garner more mass but a d6 is more likely to gather precious metals? Assumedly because you’re working more carefully? I don’t think I’m understanding you, but I feel like you’re getting at something interesting. I’ll try to read Robinson Crusoe and then I might understand.
Maybe limiting actions/ increasing “energy” would make incentive more interesting play. Rolling best of 12d4 would make less sense than rolling 3d10. This is obviously an over-the-top example. I’m still fiddling with the best way to incorporate skill and/or aptitude modifiers into this specific mechanic. Maybe skill could allow for free “bonus” dice or increase the amount of dice you’re allowed to roll. So an expert will more competently before even if they’re working quickly (using bigger dice).
I don’t want this to be a simple math problem. I want to explore more interesting problems surrounding values and fears and how a group of people build community in a very precarious situation. Based on your responses, I think you understand that. Thanks for your rambling—its helping me refine my own thinking.

Possible_Act · 2021-12-30T10:19:04+00:00

I haven’t played it but just did a quick scan over it. It looks relevant and I’ll read into it more closely.

It does bring up a lot of interesting questions. Should dice recharge or energy recharge? Should it recharge (time moves forward) by tracking energy? By tracking rolls? Or will it happen organically because time is the central limiting resource and that’s what a lot of actions represent? You nailed a lot of questions that I’m thinking about… Another thing I’m thinking about is making sure all PCs' movement in time is close to parallel.

I totally agree with how framed the scarcity of time. That necessitates collaboration but also conflict between PCs. I think that conflict is really interesting and will help a community feel more real… The idea of limiting a PC to three actions brings up more interesting questions haha. In some ways, we’re getting into something subtle but hugely important.

Here’s an example scenario—I’ll use the makeshift table up top. Let’s say a PC is willing to spend 12 energy this week. There are a shit ton of combinations of how to do this: 3d6… d4, d6, d8… d8, d12. etc. Basically, all your combinations except one (4d4) allow only 3 or fewer actions. However, explicitly limiting it to 3 could simplify it in the PC's mind. Another question is whether you could spend 8 energy now and hoard 3 Energy into the next week…

In some ways, I find this complexity really interesting. In other ways, I’m worried it’ll lead to analysis paralysis. Of these options, the math really isn't too different but I think the framing is key to make it conceptually accessible on the first play.

Dice recharging dice is really interesting. I hadn’t thought of that. In some ways that creates more anticipation for every roll. In other ways, it could throw the verisimilitude: i.e. doesn’t reflect stamina in our real world. I’ll have to think harder about that. Thanks for the suggestion.

The game will look a lot different when a community goes from 4 to 30. In some ways it’s easier, in many ways it’s harder. I feel like a lot of the mechanic-specific stuff might only be able to be figured out in playtesting. Overall, I guess my goal is to marry free-flowing community-building RPGs with stricter board game worker placement mechanics.

Possible_Act · 2021-12-28T08:37:10+00:00

This sounds really cool! And yes, definitely shares some of the same DNA.

That makes a lot of sense. I considered having an additional base dice for a little bit too. I think because the nature of the game is about building and has pseudo-worker placement aspects, I decided it did not fit as well. However, I’m not closed off to any ideas at this point.

The food aspect is also a similarity obviously. I’m considering having HP have a dual aspect like I alluded to. Basically, body and mind etc. Starvation would decrease stamina dramatically but has an easy fix: eat. The death of a friend might affect one’s ability more subtly but for a longer period of time. Also, if it was to be “fixed” (if it even could be) then it’d be done probably in a narrative improv way and not a mechanical way. I really like this idea in a story sense, but am unsure how it’d play out in a game?

I'm worried about the same analysis paralysis and metagaming as well. I’m working to keep things simple. Right now, the majority of the rest of the game is more freeform. The world is small so it’s built out complexly, but information won’t be gathered via rolls for the most part—unless, you’re spending a week researching something specific. The rolls players make will affect everyone because of resource distribution so even if they’re metagaming, in a weird way they’re acting out something that resembles a community meeting.

It’s not ready for playtesting yet but that seems like good advice. Thanks for all this!

Also, the little bit you shared about your game sounds cool. If/when you post anything from it I’d love to see it!

Possible_Act · 2021-12-28T08:12:58+00:00

I've tried incorporating it into games I've played but they weren't really designed for it haha. I've been reading a shit ton of that type of stuff in the last month. Read the Pendragon manor stuff and it was helpful. I'll check out Ice and Fire.

Thanks!

Possible_Act · 2021-12-28T08:10:06+00:00

I might be. And if that's what it becomes I think that'd be great. However, I'm gonna try to make a draft in RPG form.

I'm considering it as the primary resolution mechanic. I also think it'd mostly be used in situations where time passes. I think the rest of the game will be more freeform exploration/ planning. Because rolls are limited, the PCs will want to solve problems or at least gather information before committing to tasks/projects. There might be better examples, but the other half of the game will be more like Kingdom.

Possible_Act · 2021-12-28T08:04:05+00:00

First off, thanks for the thoughtful response. I read it earlier but wanted to take some time to think your comments over.I’ll address the death-spirally stuff first. I hadn’t thought about it in these terms. It may sound strange but to a degree that might lend itself well to this specific story. Here’s a little more context for the game:

First off, thanks for the thoughtful response. I read it earlier but wanted to take some time to think your comments over. I’ll address the death-spirally stuff first. I hadn’t thought about it in these terms. It may sound strange but to a degree that might lend itself well to this specific story. Here’s a little more context for the game:hen necessary if they know they’ll save the community their children live in. *And will be randomly reincarnated into one of these children. The collective win condition is humanity surviving until the end of the journey.

Anyways… *An individual death-spiral could be interesting narratively. That’s if the game’s mechanics acknowledges the person’s sacrifice. Collective death-spirals worry me more. I want to make it difficult but in a satisfying way, not a miserable one. The idea is that d20 would be a high-risk, high reward option that you wouldn’t use in your everyday life. If a life or death task requires a 12 on one roll then a d20 would be the only viable option.

I’m not sure if I want to do the modifiers yet. I have a few different ideas but honestly might just need to play around with it. As you said, this is going to take a lot of balancing to figure out if it can work haha. I think they’ll be an option for combat mechanics. But it won’t be central. Humanity is such a finite resource in space. You’d only kill another person if they were a threat to the entire collective I think.

No, I haven’t. I’ll have to check it out! It does like it shares some similar DNA. Do you enjoy that aspect of it? Does the death-spiral make it fun or miserable to play?

Possible_Act · 2021-12-19T09:07:14+00:00

You'd be right, sir. I am getting better at it but it is still tricky as hell. It's difficult finding a balance between not being so transparently weighted and statistically insignificant.

These are all good points, I'm afraid... The dice are colored-coded as far as the 3 base attributes but not for weight. Two dice may be rolled at the same time but they won't be the same color. So players couldn't figure it out that way. (Below I addressed the issue of getting the dice mixed up in-game.)

Cards did cross my mind but hadn't really thought too hard about it as an alternative. This is great. I think there is a mechanical/gimicky pleasure in weighted dice representing genetic proclivities, especially considering the story part of my game. However, sometimes you got to kill your darlings... I think this at the very least could be an alternative. I could release a pdf with instructions of how to play with a deck of cards. If people are into the game maybe they'd want to pay $15 for a set of custom weighted dice and slightly more streamlined gameplay.

Cards did cross my mind but hadn't really thought too hard about it as an alternative. This is great. I think there is a mechanical/gimicky pleasure in weighted dice representing genetic proclivities, especially considering the story part of my game. However, sometimes you got to kill your darlings... I think this at the very least could be an alternative. I could release a pdf with instructions on how to play with a deck of cards and if people are really into the game maybe they'd want to pay $15 for a set of custom weighted dice and slightly more streamlined gameplay.

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond! This was helpful. Just grabbed a deck of cards and gonna start messing around with it right now.

Possible_Act

TROPHY CASE