Wednesday, February 06, 2019
Reducing chance in games that use single die rolls
My recently-published design Hastings 1066, which well-known game reviewer Marco Arnaudo calls a “lunchtime wargame”, and which I call a successor to old-time microgames, reflects the amount of chance that occurs in a real battle: a lot. As with any historical battle game, simulating the chaos and chances of war is more or less the opposite of what gamers want as they explore generalship. (Commercial wargames are not representative of war, more of generalship). Gamers want to control the game, they want to feel that they succeed or fail by their own efforts; but war isn’t like that at all.
Some people won’t mind this, while others might hope there was less chance. Here I present a method of making sure that each player gets about the same number of good, bad, and middling die rolls during the play of the game. And it also might be faster than rolling dice.
To do this you need at least two decks of ordinary playing cards. Extract all the Ace through Six cards in a deck (24), shuffle them thoroughly, and draw from that deck when you need a D6 roll. Each player has his own draw deck, and each deck has an identical selection of cards. When you’ve exhausted your deck shuffle it and start over.
I think it’s more practical in some ways if you have two decks of cards per player, because it will be harder for players to memorize how many times a particular number has been drawn, and in the course of a seven turn game you’ll need more than 48 die rolls.
There’s still the chance that one player’s sixes will all be up front or all at the end of his deck, and one player might reshuffle well before the other; but in the long run this may be more satisfying than a lot of dice rolls. It’s up to you.
I make this suggestion because in one of my playtests I played someone who was not a wargamer and who was not a deep thinker, playing for the first time, but I couldn’t roll for shit and after a valiant fight I lost. It’s like the famous poker champion Doyle Brunson saying that if you consistently don’t get decent cards there’s not much you can do (when he went out of the World Series of Poker on the first day). Imagine how happy he might be if you could somehow be sure that the cards he was getting were about the same average value and frequency as the cards other players were getting, in the long run.
(Of course, dice rolling “evens out” in the long run; there is no such thing as a “bad roller”. What we’re doing here is trying to even it out in the shorter run.)
By the way, this method has flaws for rolling 2d6 or more. I wouldn’t use it for that.
(The game is available on Worthington Publishing’s website at $35. I haven’t looked for it on the usual online sellers.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"I make this suggestion because in one of my playtests I played someone who was not a wargamer and who was not a deep thinker, playing for the first time, but I couldn’t roll for shit and after a valiant fight I lost."
A problem I see with this is that most players like to say when they win it is due to skill, but when they lose it is due to bad dice rolls. I am guilty of this sometimes. With your suggestion, I won't have an excuse for losing anymore.
I've used this method in more playtests, and in games with actual players, of Stalingrad Besieged 1942.
It is remarkable how much variation there is at any given time, even with the card decks. So players can still moan about the dice results, even though they know in the long run it "evens out". When you get three aces in a row (1's) you're likely to complain. I'd say players can still complain about WHEN the good or bad rolls come up, and blame the cards.
Post a Comment