Ryan, I don’t agree that just because something is an element in the real life event that a game is based on, it should be included in the game (unless it’s a simulation, in which case I won’t be playing it anyway).  I play a game to have fun, so if something isn’t fun (which, for me, includes having dice resolve something that I can’t then adjust to), then a good designer should come up with an alternative.  As for war games, there are so many inaccurate features in most of them (such as God-like knowledge of your opponent’s forces) that it’s curious that most grognards insist that a battle’s chance factor be represented properly.  I think to a certain extent, dice are used because that’s the way conflicts have always been resolved in these games.  Thankfully, there are quite a few fresh ideas out there now, so we may be seeing the final stages of the tyranny of the dice.

And frankly, I can think of few things in gaming more frustrating and painful than being wiped out by bad dice rolls in Risk.  It’s one of the reasons I no longer play the game.

Dice get a bad rap.  But here’s why I like them… even though they HATE me (except in the grand olde days of D&D).

Let’s call dice TRULY RANDOM for the purposes of this argument.  There is no mitigation… no way to balance luck across multiple rolls or the course of a game… every time you throw dice, you are working with a clean slate.  They are also wholly unbiased; they (theoretically) are the same for everyone.

Now, most of the so-called innovations in replacing dice focus on reducing the arbitrary results of dice luck.  Dice decks are one example, as they basically force a bell curve of results into the areas where dice are in no way forced into a bell curve of results.  36 dice cards are absolutely predictable, while 36 tosses of dice are not.  Another approach to replacing dice is the Dirk Henn Wallenstein tower (even though it came from another of his games, I am only intimately familiar with Wallenstein).  In this device, which I consider absolutely brilliant for its subtle depiction of experience, fog-of-war, and battlefield conditions, luck is again mitigated slightly.  The more you put in the tower, the more that should come out.  You can’t loose forever with the tower, but you can with dice.

The point here?  Well, games that reduce luck, or mitigate it a whole bunch, tend to reward long-term strategies that can reveal themselves slowly with limited random events.  There is nothing wrong with this, as it is an admirable pursuit to try to create these strategies that will win against someone else’s strategy.

But, that’s not me.  I don’t mind these types of games, but what I REALLY love is a game of different type.  And, sadly, dice are the best way to create the game environment I crave.

-I love to create strategies that take into account probabilities.
-I love to create flexible approaches to long-term plans.  I like to have an “if-thenâ€? series of questions in my strategies.  If I take Karelia, then I will… etc.
-I HATE to lose battles when the odds are with me, but I LOVE to overcome bad dice to win anyway.  For me, this is the greatest feeling in gaming.

With this is in mind, I love Wizard Kings, Battle Cry, Twilight Imperium III, Ancients, Conquest of the Empire, Hammer of the Scots, etc.

Dice may be an old and uninspired process of randomization, but they still serve a purpose, and are still extremely elegant in the results they provide.

La Citta’, Puerto Rico, and El Grande are incredible games, but they don’t fill every need I have as a gamer.  Sometimes I just want to be the underdog, and win.

Carpe Di"C"em.

I think the purpose of dice in wargames is to add realism by removing perfect knowledge (but in an abstract manner).  Specifically, when you attack an enemy force with perfect knowledge you know what will happen, but when you attack and there is randomness in the outcome then maybe it was stronger or maybe it was weaker. It is not to say combat itself is random but that the unknown intelligence or lack of perfect information was represented by a die roll.

In my opinion repeating a battle will always produce the same results if the factors are the same so randomness is there to reveal what the unknown factors were and specifically to define what unknown factors in a game the players do not have control over. 

Combat is not random, intelligence is.

Ryan -

People, please read what I wrote - not what you think I wrote!

I never said there shouldn’t be any randomness in combat resolution.  I say I like the cube tower in Wallenstein and that certainly has randomness!  It’s the use of DICE that I’m tired of - I think game designers should try to come up with something more innovative than just rolling dice, which has been done a million times before.

- Rick

Wow.  Great comments...even if we disagree. 

To Rick’s comment… I think I got from your writing that a degree of randomness is OK.  What I also took from your writing was that dice were not the best or most innovative way to accomplish this and that we need something fresh.  I guess we could say the same thing about the board, the plastic minatures, the cards… anything.  But at what point would we call it a board game? 

Again, I’m not against methods of resolution other than dice.  But I think too much weight is put on that as a topic. Rolling some dice or having them drop out of a tower really makes no difference to me… the player interaction is a far more important determinate as to how fun a game is over it’s method of combat resolution.  So for me, dice are familiar, they’re fun and other methods of resolution aren’t any better or worse.  Just different.

So we all have opinions of what we like in a game that we have to respect.  And I generally think we have in this forum.  I just suggest that we give more respect to dice… still the great workhorse of the modern boardgame.  : )

Yahtzee anyone?

I think some of the things FFG is doing with dice are pretty good at adding complexity and opportunities for strategy while keeping the rules and resolution quick…

The Doom dice having range, damage, and ammo requirements all on one roll is pretty innovative.  The 3 “colors” of dice in WoW the boardgame help keep the game moving by rolling them all once and applying them by color…

In this way, innovation continues even though dice are used.  So, it isn’t necessary to innovate the randomness by just moving away from dice, there are still areas to explore. (Formula De, anyone? although even FD could use a few less dice rolls if the dice were better engineered)

As for those who want to claim “planned” randomness (like using 36 chits in Settlers), that is fine if the game is better enjoyed.  To me, that just introduces “chit counting” to the game and adds complexity… (have both “11"s gone by yet? etc...) I don’t have a problem with die-randomness.. it is much closer to the randomness experienced in every day life.  If there is a drought this year, the chances of a drought next year are not really any better or worse.

Despite my midwestern heritage, just because I win the lottery, doesn’t mean I’m any more likely to get hit by lightning…