D&D General What Does the Choice of Dice Mean for the RPG? (+)

[Umbran]

That said, the specific focus of this article isn't about the mechanics of the dice, or even fit-to-function of the dice. Instead, it's about the cultural assumptions (the semiotics, or signifiers) of the various dice that we use.

Ah, I see. That's fair.

 

[Celebrim]

That said, the specific focus of this article isn't about the mechanics of the dice, or even fit-to-function of the dice. Instead, it's about the cultural assumptions (the semiotics, or signifiers) of the various dice that we use.

I think that with less than a doctoral thesis and accompanying research, it's going to be really hard to say anything about the cultural assumptions of the RPing community (or the non-RPing community for that matter) with respect to dice.

For example, Traveller uses only 2d6 as its fortune resolution, which is to the non-RPing community and anyone influenced by the culture of it, a very ordinary fortune mechanism as far as dice goes. But the 2d6 fortune resolution in Traveller doesn't actually signify to the community that Traveller is a very approachable game easily understood by either the inside or outside community. On the contrary, it's D&D with its array of specialized dice that is viewed as the game new players are typically introduced to RPing by.

Stack of D6 games, while they might involve familiar dice, are generally (with a few exceptions, Star Wars D6 being the most notable) viewed as culturally advanced RPGs by the tabletop roleplaying community.

But that's just my impression, and honestly I think the culture of tables is so diverse and unique that all we are going to end up saying is, "The culture of my table is to treat dice of this sort in this way."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think that with less than a doctoral thesis and accompanying research, it's going to be really hard to say anything about the cultural assumptions of the RPing community (or the non-RPing community for that matter) with respect to dice.

It's almost like I went through an entire history discussing this- and included Traveller.

Again, this isn't about how specific table are viewing resolution mechanics, but how these assumptions are baked into game design; arguably preceding decisions about best-fit.

But if you think that this conversation is impossible, I respect your opinion- but I'm not sure why you've written so much about something that it so hard to say anything about.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So my initial, possibly stupid, thoughts are that complicated dice (d20 systems as defined by OP) tend to go with complicated games where rules are very important and the emphasis is on long campaigns, and simpler dice (d6 as defined by OP) tend to go with simpler games that emphasize one-off games. D20 games are about designer or DM control, D6 games about player freedom (and neither of those is necessarily better).

Edit: also, I tend to think of d20 games as all D&D, just with different skins on. By which I mean that the game play experience is always basically similar in terms of the relationship between the GM, players, and rules.

As I hope to elaborate on in the next few posts, I think that very little time is spent in most RPGs mapping on the actual fit of the dice to the function of the game.

Unlike, say, videogames in which a lot of effort has been spent on the feel of the game (and how RNG fits into this), I am putting forth the idea that, in fact, very little effort is put forth in TTRPG area, and that it is mostly habit.

 

[Cadence]

As I hope to elaborate on in the next few posts, I think that very little time is spent in most RPGs mapping on the actual fit of the dice to the function of the game.

Unlike, say, videogames in which a lot of effort has been spent on the feel of the game (and how RNG fits into this), I am putting forth the idea that, in fact, very little effort is put forth in TTRPG area, and that it is mostly habit.

I wonder sometimes about the desire to make mechanics be universal.

Aren't some activities simply more random than others, and don't some activities simply have a greater spread between master and journeyman and apprentice in terms of chance of success?

So it feels like trying to have all three of dice rolls, bonus by mastery level, and difficulty targets be the same is doomed to not work out.
(It feels akin trying to use an ELO scale for rating different sports/games. Having them all have the same denominator of 400 like Chess seems fine. But then expecting the resulting range of competitor ratings get to be the same across the sports/games is ludicrous -- because not all sports have the same degree of separation and/or randomness. Similarly, one could set the range of ratings to be the same across them, but then trying to set the denominator of 400 to be the same in all of them won't work).

So, in a D&D like game, would some activities be better modeled by using d20 and some by using 3d6, or whatever? (Or some modeled using + bonus and some with + 2xbonus).

 

[clearstream]

2. d6. A d6 resolution system, on the other hand, will often carry with it the idea that the game will have simpler (or simplified) resolution mechanics. That there will be less variety of dice rolls, and that the dice rolls will matter less. A d6 mechanic will often carry the promise that this game is not D&D, and instead can be seen as outside of the bailiwick of D&D. In addition, it presumes no barrier to entry, as everyone has a d6.

In the d6 games I have played, it wasn't the case that the dice rolls mattered less. A great example is Torchbearer 2. The dice rolls couldn't matter more! So I wondered what your thought was there? Do you mean "matter less" in some specific way that I'm not grokking?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In the d6 games I have played, it wasn't the case that the dice rolls mattered less. A great example is Torchbearer 2. The dice rolls couldn't matter more! So I wondered what your thought was there? Do you mean "matter less" in some specific way that I'm not grokking?

In order to answer this, I have to approach this from a few different perspectives.

First, we have to look at the context of that sentence in the OP-

Instead, I think it's much more interesting to look at what the difference is when you look at games that are d6 only, and games that are d20 (the D&D set or subsets thereof). What are some of the cultural assumptions and baggage that go into deciding one or the other?

Then contrast that with the concluding statement-
On the one hand, I don't want to put too much into this- there are long-standing commercial games that have used the d6 mechanic, from GURPS to WEG's D6 system. It is also entirely possible to go to itch.io and find indie games that use d20.

So on this level of generality, I'm not saying that every single game has every single cultural signifier! In fact, as I will (eventually) further develop, and I mentioned in the prior response above this, I often think that the choice of a given resolution system in terms of the dice chosen isn't necessarily a reflection of what is the best fit for a game- instead, you end up with choices like, "This is an indie game, and not a commercial D&D-like game, so it will use d6," as opposed to genuine thought as to what dice make up the best possible experience for a given game.

But to delve more deeply into this, I would say that we can look at an example of a game like Lord of the Dice (the thought experiment / parody by Costikyan/Goldberg from 1979)- however, simply change and simplify; replace all dice mechanics with flipping a coin. Replace success and failure with "Yes, and," and "No, but ..." Add in some type of meta-currency for players to spend to move results from "No, but ..." to, "Yes, and," and provide a thick set of guidelines that constrain how players can declare actions and how GMs can adjudicate results - in other words, move the heuristics for the fiction from the shared consent of the people playing to written guidelines.

I realize that was a big paragraph with lots of thoughts, but I want you to think about it for a little while and try to imagine that resulting game using a coin flip as the sold method of randomization in a game that was otherwise heavily narrative. Now, call the coin a d2. During the game, a person might say that a given "roll" (coin flip) mattered a great deal! The player might be out of their metacurrency, and a bad roll on the d2 might mean the GM gets to use a specified "No, but," against them that will SUCK. Conversely, they really want to be able to ,"Yes, and!" This is super important for them, the narrative, and the character!

But in terms of looking at dice rolls qua dice rolls, the actual rolls matter less. Maybe you think this is a distinction without a difference; but generally, it is my opinion that in terms of cultural signifiers, when I see a d6 based game, I assume that the creators are more concerned with features of the game other than the die rolls.

 

[clearstream]

In order to answer this, I have to approach this from a few different perspectives.

First, we have to look at the context of that sentence in the OP-

Instead, I think it's much more interesting to look at what the difference is when you look at games that are d6 only, and games that are d20 (the D&D set or subsets thereof). What are some of the cultural assumptions and baggage that go into deciding one or the other?

Then contrast that with the concluding statement-
On the one hand, I don't want to put too much into this- there are long-standing commercial games that have used the d6 mechanic, from GURPS to WEG's D6 system. It is also entirely possible to go to itch.io and find indie games that use d20.

So on this level of generality, I'm not saying that every single game has every single cultural signifier! In fact, as I will (eventually) further develop, and I mentioned in the prior response above this, I often think that the choice of a given resolution system in terms of the dice chosen isn't necessarily a reflection of what is the best fit for a game- instead, you end up with choices like, "This is an indie game, and not a commercial D&D-like game, so it will use d6," as opposed to genuine thought as to what dice make up the best possible experience for a given game.

But to delve more deeply into this, I would say that we can look at an example of a game like Lord of the Dice (the thought experiment / parody by Costikyan/Goldberg from 1979)- however, simply change and simplify; replace all dice mechanics with flipping a coin. Replace success and failure with "Yes, and," and "No, but ..." Add in some type of meta-currency for players to spend to move results from "No, but ..." to, "Yes, and," and provide a thick set of guidelines that constrain how players can declare actions and how GMs can adjudicate results - in other words, move the heuristics for the fiction from the shared consent of the people playing to written guidelines.

I realize that was a big paragraph with lots of thoughts, but I want you to think about it for a little while and try to imagine that resulting game using a coin flip as the sold method of randomization in a game that was otherwise heavily narrative. Now, call the coin a d2. During the game, a person might say that a given "roll" (coin flip) mattered a great deal! The player might be out of their metacurrency, and a bad roll on the d2 might mean the GM gets to use a specified "No, but," against them that will SUCK. Conversely, they really want to be able to ,"Yes, and!" This is super important for them, the narrative, and the character!

But in terms of looking at dice rolls qua dice rolls, the actual rolls matter less. Maybe you think this is a distinction without a difference; but generally, it is my opinion that in terms of cultural signifiers, when I see a d6 based game, I assume that the creators are more concerned with features of the game other than the die rolls.

Okay, so what I understand from that is that you are putting forward that inputs to the roll other than the actual number thrown on the die, and subsequent shaping of the result, will account for a significant part of the impact of the roll.

In this case, my feeling is one needs to carefully disambiguate "roll" from "dice". Let's say that the six-sided cube is just one component of the roll. Where the roll is the complete method with all its inputs and outputs. One input is going to be the number on the six-sided. In Torchbear, you will roll some quantity of dice and look for 1-3, 4-6, and sometimes specifically 6. The least number of sides needed for this arrangement is 6, seeing as the 6 must be 1:6. So the die must be characterised as a d6 (not a d2) just for the sake of clarity.

Probably the heftiest inputs are the obstacle (how many of your dice need to come up 4-6 for you to succeed), and whichever parameter of your character dictates how many dice to pick up (typically, skills.) Inputs, generally, adjust the number of dice thrown, and there are quite a few available, such as help and wises. On the outputs side, the roll either succeeds, or it succeeds at a cost or fails with a twist (DM's choice.) The result also has an implicit degree of failure or success (count of 1-3s and 4-6s, versus the obstacle).

I assume that the creators are more concerned with features of the game other than the die rolls.

I feel like the creators of Torchbearer were very concerned with their die rolls. Die rolls quite literally grind the game forwards. They go so far as to create specialised dice for their game. It could just be that Torchbearer is exceptional or it might be that an additional category is needed for dice-pool games, which I feel may well have physical and cultural manifestations that are in a different place than 'one-die' games.

I suppose this discussion makes me wonder about the NSD category. Presumably it contains Earthdawn (assemble short-pools of dice in steps according to their average + optional karma die), Ironsworn (a d6+mods compared with 2d10), Torchbearer as noted, WHFRP, and L5R (I am thinking here of the FFG 5th edition which bears some similarity in method to ToR.) Generally, NSD systems care about their physical dice... but one might say that their focus is on interactions between and poolings of those dice. I'd propose that one can't really assess them just on the basis of what die-sizes are being rolled.

 

[pogre]

There was an old RPG called FVLMINATA set in Roman times with some primitive gun powder and technology. It used a set of a dice that replicated throwing sheep knuckles in a gambling game that was popular among Roman soldiers. You would toss the dice and create a "hand" from the four dice (2 pair, 3 of a kind, vultures, etc.) that would determine your success level. Unfortunately, somebody better at math than me did an in depth analysis of the dice results and found it made the game very imbalanced - the odds just did not work out. Nonetheless, I thought it did an awesome job of evoking the atmosphere of the game.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I remember coming across someone, somewhere that used "math dice" to determine a character's magical aptitude. They were d6s sides of (0, 1, pi, phi, e, i). Three were rolled, and then they had some table that depending on what you rolled described your aptitude. (0, 0, 0) you couldn't use magic at all, but were also somewhat resistant. (i, i, i) your character was a master illusionist. So on.

I always preferred rolling multiple dice at the same time; playing Traveller was inherently more satisfying in some way since I could hear the clatter of the dice in my hand. When playing D&D I prefer rolling two d20s and remarking "green is the active one, ignore the red".