Dice User Experience
Just thinking about dice. I remember seeing advice, like six years ago at this point, that you can use d6 (with modifiers) to replace other dice as far as like weapons go since the average is the same. This rationale sort of persists from the Fifth Edition crowd into the later OSR crowd, that since OD&D only used d6 so should you—and modify the d6 as you want. Personally, I like d6 for being common and predictable, but lately I have been wondering if there isn’t something more user-friendly about using differently shaped dice instead of adding or subtracting from d6.
| Variable Size | Average | d6 Only |
|---|---|---|
| d4 | 2.5 | d6 – 1 |
| d6 | 3.5 | d6 |
| d8 | 4.5 | d6 + 1 |
| d10 | 5.5 | d6 + 2 |
| d12 | 6.5 | d6 + 3 |
Let’s take d6 + 1 for example, the much-maligned basic bitch magic sword. As such, you roll d6 and add 1 for a result from 2 to 7. Rolling d8 has the same average, but it has a range from 1 to 8. In aggregate you’re going to roll just about as well, but you have the chance of rolling a little bit lower or a little bit higher than if you just added 1 to a roll of d6. Besides this being honestly, totally fine, it has the more immediate benefit that you just read the number on the die’s face. On its face, I would completely prefer using differently sized dice just because from the standpoint of user interaction it feels quicker and more intuitive—at least if it’s not just a +1 magic sword, but categories of weapons used throughout the game with all kinds of modifiers. Weapons of multiple different sizes, materials, or whatever.
In a way, though, I think this whole discussion is a red herring. Like I said, there are people who get uppity about there being differently sized dice, but then end up using modified d6 instead. Have you ever read a table like the one below?
| Weapon Size | Damage |
|---|---|
| Small | d6 – 1 |
| Medium | d6 |
| Large | d6 + 1 |
Or, God forbid, the one below which on average is similar to above:
| Weapon Size | Damage |
|---|---|
| Small | Lowest of 2d6 |
| Medium | d6 |
| Large | Highest of 2d6 |
Is this necessary? Is this loving? Is this kind? (lol) It’s not my cup of tea. The extra milliseconds of processing a little algorithm to find out how much less damage your dagger does feels excessive to me. Even worse, it defeats the utility of only using d6. When OD&D only uses d6 as damage, it does not distinguish between different weapon sizes. It does not care. Everything does d6 damage because it’s quick and abstract. You don’t have to think about it. Introducing degrees of differentiation into rolling d6 defeats the point of using just d6.
So, ultimately I do feel like it’s better to use differently sized dice instead of modifying d6 in every which way, but when is it really necessary? Why is there a compulsion that small weapons (or whatever) must deal 1 less pip of damage than medium weapons on average, or that large weapons deal 1 more pip of damage on average (in case you don't want to do the math, all the methods above result in the same thing)? Against 1 hit die and a to-hit chance of 50%, we just see the following differences in longevity (expressed as number of attacks necessary to defeat on average):
| Weapon Size | HD (d6) | HD (d8) |
|---|---|---|
| Small | 2.8 | 3.6 |
| Medium | 2.0 | 2.5 |
| Large | 1.6 | 2.0 |
This isn’t to like bash anyone for using weapon sizes, especially because it is such a common convention at this point, but I just do not feel like the extra effort and formalization is worth the outcome. I could see a binary categorization—like, one-handed versus two-handed weapons—as being simple enough to get away with it (and with trade-offs like, a shield means +1 to armor, but then you can’t equip a two-handed weapon for +1 to-hit/damage). I think it's that binary categories are easy to treat as exceptional vs non-exceptional, whereas having more categories feels more like a hassle unless you do it in a straightforward, non-fiddly way. Moreover, increasing complexity seems increasingly arbitrary and should be supported by straightforward tradeoffs. In my opinion.
To sum up my thoughts:
- Generally Speaking: Just one die is fine. Don’t worry about it! How much does it really matter?
- Two Categories: Adding a bonus is fine. It’s binary, like, either you add it or you don’t. Maybe different dice would even feel jarring if there's just two of them.
- Many Categories: No formulas. Use different dice or reconsider whether you need all those categories.
Does that make sense? I'm basically spitballing.
I am increasingly fond of straight-forward d6 rolls, though I have a soft spot for the bell curve of “take the middle of 3d6.”
ReplyDeleteI agree, if you're going to build a lot of categories, just roll different dice. I particularly like the d6 only approach to all attacks, with the eventual binary situation (2 hands vs one, etc)
ReplyDeleteI've liked the idea of using different dice vs. modifiers, or uniform distribution (single die) vs. normal distribution (combination of dice) as ways of evoking different "feels". I no longer remember which blog I first read about this from, but the idea of like a weapon that's more reliable being I forget the exact numbers but let's say 2d6, vs. one that's swingier being 1d12, or something like that. Like maybe a fancy sword is a normal distribution (2d6), not likely to deal especially high or low damage, but most likely around the middle; whereas some big axe might be uniform (1d12); equally likely to barely scrape, deal average damage, or a massive blow.
ReplyDeletei think that kind of difference is fun! the tradeoff being intuitive and driven by player strategy feels neat :)
DeleteI also like the approach of having the same damage and hit die type (if you use variable HD that is).
ReplyDeleteAlso if we are talking about the user experience of dice, simplicity isn't the only thing to consider, there is also the fun factor. A lot of folks find it fun to roll polyhedral dice or multiple dice. This group of people will prefer variable damage dice or the roll 2d6 and drop the lowest or highest based on the weapon (and let's not forget the dreaded arithmetic dice gang who enjoy a side of math with thier ttrpg main course).
for sure! 100% a preference thing, both as far as dice rolls and also how everything is formalized in general
DeleteI went through this same thought process the other day and decided that even the vanilla game has more weapon options than I want. I settled on four:
ReplyDeleteMelee 1H 1d6
Melee 2H 1d6+1
Ranged 1d6 (reload or move)
Dual melee 1d6, +1AV
I like to keep 2H weapons d6+1 (rather than d8) because it feels right that big weapons can't do just 1 point of damage.
I have two minor observations:
ReplyDelete1) A target with 1d6 hp will survive 28% of the time (10/36) against 1d6+1 damage, and 31% of the time (15/48) against 1d8 damage. A negligible difference as far as I'm concerned.
2) One advantage of modifiers rather than different dice is that results can be retroactively corrected at the table more easily. If you roll a 1d6 and only then realize you should have rolled 1d6+3, no problem. If you roll 1d6 and only then realize you should have rolled 1d12, this may cause (minor) trouble / frustration (for instance, if you are using exploding dice or have natural 1s indicate a fumble or whatever).
hi johann! both of those are great points, thank you :) i actually do like d8 being a bit more punchy than d6+1, even if it is just a 3# difference. but also agree that it's easier to deal with the same dice than different ones as far as accidents go! often people have confusion figuring out which is which in general, so that is totally another angle to consider.
Delete