Custom Dice Worthy of Odin Himself...or Not
Those two squigglies towards the left
are actually sea serpents, by the way.
Why have Axes and Double Axes instead
of say, Axes and Swords? User interface issues, honestly.
Rather than introduce another symbol, I believe it's more
thematic and easier for the player to count number of axes,
instead of axes plus swords. It's also easier for me to write
tight rules. For example, "You succeed on a 2 or more axes"
is easily understood and processed, whereas "You succeed on any
of the following combos: 2 axes, any number of swords, or any
combination of axes and swords" is not as simple.
I arrived at the above face
distribution by process of design iteration. Iteration -- you know,
trying something and seeing if it works.
Yeah, I hadn't heard of iteration
either until I worked on some paper games.
SFX:
RIM SHOT
The
writer smiles and briefly envisions a successful stand-up career.
MONTAGE:
STAND UP COMIC LIFE, ULTIMATELY ENDING IN HUMILIATION.
But I digress.
In this case, the design iteration for
arriving at a good face distribution was mainly just math. That is,
I did all the calculations below for some different face
distributions and then adjusted the faces and the game rules until I
liked the results.
Let's take a look at the numbers and
mechanics associated with these new fancy custom dice. Probability,
per die:
-
pBlank
= 1/6 = 16.7%
-
pMonster
= 2/6 = 33.3%
-
pAxe
= 2/6 = 33.3%
-
pDAxe
= 1/6 = 16.7%
Armed with this info, let's finally
dive into some of the dice-related mechanics in the game. Obviously
you don't have a full copy of the rulebook, but I'll try to cover
enough detail to give you some context for the rules.
SEA
MONSTER CHECK:
Roll
both dice. If any MONSTER symbols are shown, then the ship has
encountered one.
A Sea Monster in a
Sea Zone
Any time a Longship sails through a sea
zone with a MONSTER in it, any players without Shamans onboard their
ship must make a check to see if a vile sea beast is encountered.
Hitting a monster results in loss of a crewman and
the player must draw a damage card and apply the damage markers to
the ship. I wanted this to happen approximately half of the
time. (It's always good to have a design goal before you get mired in
the numerical analysis.)
To figure the chance of this happening,
it's easiest to use the concept of "converse probability."
Essentially, we just have to calculate the chance of a monster not
occurring on either die, and then subtract this from unity (100%) to
see how likely it is for at least one monster to show.
In plain language, there is a 4/6
chance on each die that a monster will not appear. In
order to roll both dice and have no monsters, each die must
satisfy this requirement. In this case, we multiply the
probabilities as shown above. There is a 4/9 chance of rolling no
monsters at all.
So there is a 55.6% chance of the
player hitting a monster. This number is close enough to my
design intent for the monsters and shouldn't really require any major
balance tweaks.
Since there is a 2/6 chance of rolling
a monster on each individual die, it's very easy to make the
mistake of trying to calculate the chance of rolling at
least one monster on two dice this way:
To see why this is erroneous, consider
rolling 2d6. What are the chances of rolling a 4 or above on at least
one die?
Hmmm, suspicious. Rolling 2 dice,
you certainly are not guaranteed to roll 4 or above on
at least one die, yet this calculation says you should be. As a
general rule of thumb, if you are doing probability calcs that say an
event is 100% likely to happen, most of the time something has gone
wrong.
It gets even worse if you look at the
chance of rolling 2+ on at least one die:
Danger, Will Robinson! You've invented
the equivalent of the perpetual motion machine!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine). It's just
not valid to add probabilities when you have two independent events
going on. Here, each die is an independent event.
You can only add probabilities when you
have a single event with multiple success criteria -- for example,
checking for a King or an Ace by drawing one card from a deck. In
this case,:
This is a totally valid way of adding
probabilities, because you are just adding success criteria for a
single event.
|
All of the games I mention use probability and custom cut dice combinations to evoke a specific model of probabilities for weapon and ability differentiation.
Do you find that the decision for using custom cut dice was more a matter of making your game unique, or was it to map the probabilities in a more grokkable fashion for the player?
Awareness of how game mechanics work at their core is what true game design is all about.
And as a player, even though in a lot of games users are not aware of how probability is involved; there's still a lot of gamers like myself that enjoy clear feedback of probability components and the action of throwing digital dice whatever the shape this takes.
First, it adds a little more personality to the game. It's a little more fun to check for axes and sea monsters than just a check things like "4 or above on d6". Goes with the theme better.
Second, the symbols are a bit more grokkable, as you've pointed out. I'm hoping the rules are more memorable, and less checking of reference tables will be required. Rolling two dice and checking for sea monsters when passing through a Sea Monster-inhabited sea zone maps well to memory (in theory).
Some of the combos I found I needed to do just made more sense with the symbols, whereas they seemed really clumsy with straight d6s. For example, the raiding rules: checking for axes and taking casualties on sea monsters is sorta simple, whereas "5-6 equals 1 success, 6 = two successes, and a roll of 2-3 is a casualty" is just a little more of a mouthful.
Of course, I'm just using normal d6s to prototype.
I'm not saying that custom dice are categorically better; but I like the theme-ey-ness.