What are your thoughts on TTRPGs with non-standard dice?

[Ruin Explorer]

Perhaps you manage to fix the reactor in record time but you'll have to do it from inside.

I mean, but do results like that have any extra value? Maybe it's just the example but it sounds it's producing a somewhat nonsensical result. Like, not completely, but also not possessed of special value compared to say a d6 dice-pool system which counted 1s as indicating something bad.

That's what I'm looking to see - something actually special. I presume there are funky dice systems which achieve that, I just don't know of them.

EDIT - Also this again may be the example but, like this seems like something that wouldn't be really appropriate to roll for skill checks? Like, your skill doesn't influence what method the reactor requires to fix it. Like, Jimmy Carter had to inside a nuclear reactor to fix it, but it wasn't because of skill or lack thereof, it was the literally the only method by which the reactor could be fixed. Maybe I am misunderstanding?

Daggerheart doesn't do it, but you could create a similar system where skill and circumstance modifiers are applied directly to the Hope die. If your bonuses exceed your penalties, Hope is more likely to beat Fear, and vice versa.

Or scale the die used up/down based on penalties and bonuses, which Daggerheart actually does do with some powers and abilities. Like ones that make you roll a d20 for the Hope die instead of the d12, or reduce the GM's die to a d12, and so on. I think there may even be one that lets you roll a d20 for the Fear die, so your chance of success goes up a lot but your chance of rolling with Fear does as well.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

There are no useless dice! Just useless people who think the d4 is a die, and not a caltrop.

Old grognards never die; they just lose track of all their dice.

I am fond of the Triangle Agency dice for more than one reason.
The bloody caltrops idea is one of them.
"Get off my lawn!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

Everyone who owns more cutlery and plates than they use at dinner on a regular basis has useless cutlery and plates. Everyone who has more pairs of shoes than they absolutely hard-need for the activities they do on a regular basis has useless shoes (so probably 2-4 pairs max). Everyone who wears underwear has useless underwear because let's be real, you could go commando.

What are you trying to say here mate?

EDIT - In fact let's go further - all dice are useless, because you could theoretically use a dice-roller on your phone!

That complaining about maybe having useless dice as a reason not to buy some product with dice is...not a great reason IMO?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That complaining about maybe having useless dice as a reason not to buy some product with dice is...not a great reason IMO?

I mean, it is though.

It absolutely is. Because not only are those dice useless, but you have to keep track of those dice specifically, and after a certain amount of time, you probably can't replace them. Hell, like I said, I tried to buy funky dice for a game less than two years old, and could not find them on sale new anywhere. I can't even find them second hand when I look now.

So not only are they useless, but they're also not replaceable.

Also your example was bad, because as pointed out, 3-4 lots of dice is not actually enough to play pretty much any dice-pool game. Hell it's incredibly awkward to try and play D&D with less than about 10 d20s, if you have a DM and 4 players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Every time I play, there's always someone who needs to borrow dice. And of course, I am happy to supply them.
View attachment 414725

Sure. This is why I said more than 3-4 complete sets.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. This is why I said more than 3-4 complete sets.

You didn't define that, so the natural interpretation is 1 of each of the primary polyhedrals. And that's nowhere near enough for comfortable play of most games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, it is though.

It absolutely is. Because not only are those dice useless, but you have to keep track of those dice specifically, and after a certain amount of time, you probably can't replace them. Hell, like I said, I tried to buy funky dice for a game less than two years old, and could not find them on sale new anywhere. I can't even find them second when I look now.

All my funky dice are in a separate bag on my RPG shelves, next to my regular dice. I have zero reason to worry about losing them. From my personal perspective (the only one any of us can be sure about), it simply isn't an issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You didn't define that, so the natural interpretation is 1 of each of the primary polyhedrals. And that's nowhere near enough for comfortable play of most games.

Read post #74 again. I specifically said more than 3-4 complete sets.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Read post #74 again. I specifically said more than 3-4 complete sets.

More than 3-4 is what, 5? You're not really clarifying your position in a way that informs us here.

With four players and a GM, let's be real, if you're playing WoD games, owning about 50 d10s is a pretty good idea. If you're playing Shadowrun, and you don't have at least 50 d6s, you're probably going to regret it. If you're playing D&D or Shadowdark, and you don't have 10 d10s, you're going to be sad in my experience. With Daggerheart, you need at least 8 d12s, and they need to recognisably different from each other, and ideally one looks good or light and one looks evil or dark in each pair. Call of Cthulhu - I think you'll want probably 5 normal d10s and 5 two-figure d10s for a five-person table.

I think just from the above we're really talking a dead minimum of 10 "complete sets" plus extra sets of d6s and d10s. And if you want to play that weird game someone told me about that uses a dice pool made of d12s and then strikes all the odd rolls from the pool (or whatever it was), you're probably going to need like 30+ d12s, which even I don't have!

Maybe you could give some more precise guidance on how many is too many lol? I'm sure most of us do have "too many" - I'm not sure it's by as much as might be implied though.

 

[Staffan]

EDIT - Also this again may be the example but, like this seems like something that wouldn't be really appropriate to roll for skill checks? Like, your skill doesn't influence what method the reactor requires to fix it. Like, Jimmy Carter had to inside a nuclear reactor to fix it, but it wasn't because of skill or lack thereof, it was the literally the only method by which the reactor could be fixed. Maybe I am misunderstanding?

It does require a certain amount of "black-boxing". The reactor has taken damage and needs to be repaired to work. You roll to see if you can do it, and get a result like that. Clearly, the broken part was something that was inside. Or maybe you could interpret it some other way – maybe you can push it extra to get extra speed to get away from the Star Destroyer bearing down, but unknown to you it has started leaking Verzini radiation which doesn't directly affect anyone on the ship, but makes it easy for the Star Destroyer to follow you (though your souped up speed makes it take a while). Or something like that.

Sure. This is why I said more than 3-4 complete sets.

The definition of "complete set" depends a lot on which game it is. For Savage Worlds, I'd want to have two sets of d4 through d12 plus a distinct d6 as a wild die. Maybe an extra die or two if I have some weapon that deals a buttload of damage, but that's situational. But if I'm playing Pathfinder... well, my 13th level sorcerer can cast spells that deal 8d10 fire +8d10 positive (only vs undead, so ideally I'd have two differently-colored sets of 8d10, but I could reroll in a pinch), 16d6, 9d12, 15d4 or 8d8 damage. So yeah, that can vary a bit. At higher levels I'd need even more.

Edit: Also, whomever came up with brass dragons using buttloads of d4s for breath weapon damage should spend their days dancing barefoot on said d4s. Probably whomever was in charge of the 2e Monstrous Compendium (as IIRC pre-2e dragons just did damage equal to their hp?).