Average Dice

[Vinnie]

I've been doings few playtest recently and a few of the games have seen some extreme dice skewing the game. While I have no problem with this in a normal game, once we are at the stage of trying to balance, it become harder if the Germans are constantly getting 2s and 3s while the Russians get 10s and 11s.
I was wondering how possible it might be to play son that 6s become 4s and 1s become 3s except for rate and breakdown purposes?
Thus a 1, 4 becomes a 7 with rate of 1. 6, 5 becomes a 9 unless you breakdown on an 11.
1,1 becomes 6 but heat of battle.

Not suggesting this for general play but for latervdtage playtesting.

 

[Actionjick]

I've been doings few playtest recently and a few of the games have seen some extreme dice skewing the game. While I have no problem with this in a normal game, once we are at the stage of trying to balance, it become harder if the Germans are constantly getting 2s and 3s while the Russians get 10s and 11s.
I was wondering how possible it might be to play son that 6s become 4s and 1s become 3s except for rate and breakdown purposes?
Thus a 1, 4 becomes a 7 with rate of 1. 6, 5 becomes a 9 unless you breakdown on an 11.
1,1 becomes 6 but heat of battle.

Not suggesting this for general play but for latervdtage playtesting.

How many times are you playtesting each scenario?

 

[lightspeed]

I would suggest the following method. It works well face-to-face.

The probability of rolling a 2 or 12 is the same, as are (3,11), (4,10), (5,9), and (6,8).

The goal is to have the same number of rolls for each element of the pairs listed above
(so the same number of 4 and 10, for example).

You will need to record your rolls. If you roll a 4 or 10, consult your records. If the number
of 4s and 10s is the same, use the dice as they landed.

If not, then let's pretend you rolled a 4 and 4s have been rolled more than 10s. Flip the dice
over. The roll will now be a 10, and record the 10. Malfunction, ROF and other things are decided
by the final DR (after flipping, if required).

A roll of 7 is never modified.

This method guarantees that the elements of each pair will either be rolled an equal number
of times, or (at worst) one number will be rolled one time more than the other.

I have used it in play testing...I found it works just fine.

indy

 

[RandyT0001]

Created this so one can record the results.

Double sided version is here:

Average Dice

Using precision dice takes the question of dice quality into it. Or more that of dice superstition.That's why I use precision dice too: it simply takes the element of lopsided dice out of the equation.* * Quoting De Niro from Ronin: "When there's a doubt there is no doubt."

www.gamesquad.com

 

[Actionjick]

I would suggest the following method. It works well face-to-face.

The probability of rolling a 2 or 12 is the same, as are (3,11), (4,10), (5,9), and (6,8).

The goal is to have the same number of rolls for each element of the pairs listed above
(so the same number of 4 and 10, for example).

You will need to record your rolls. If you roll a 4 or 10, consult your records. If the number
of 4s and 10s is the same, use the dice as they landed.

If not, then let's pretend you rolled a 4 and 4s have been rolled more than 10s. Flip the dice
over. The roll will now be a 10, and record the 10. Malfunction, ROF and other things are decided
by the final DR (after flipping, if required).

A roll of 7 is never modified.

This method guarantees that the elements of each pair will either be rolled an equal number
of times, or (at worst) one number will be rolled one time more than the other.

I have used it in play testing...I found it works just fine.

indy

Is this or similar methods commonly used in playtesting these days?

What are it's advantages and disadvantages?

As a playtester about how many times do you playtest a scenario?

I'll have to mull this method over with Captain Bacchus and see what he thinks about it.

 

[Vinnie]

How many times are you playtesting each scenario?

I'm on to the 5th interation in this one...

 

[Vinnie]

Is this or similar methods commonly used in playtesting these days?

What are it's advantages and disadvantages?

As a playtester about how many times do you playtest a scenario?

I'll have to mull this method over with Captain Bacchus and see what he thinks about it.

Generally, would not use it but it so appens that in the last couple of games, we've seen extreme dice. I pulled off 2 critical hits when I was just ranging in on pretty much invulnerable tanks (needed a 4 to hit and then a 3 to immobilise) which had quite an effect on the scenario. Likewise, I risked 3 tanks on shots of 4 or less and lost all 3. It's just an idea to lessen the luck element to see how it balances.

 

[Gordon]

Wouldn't using chits be an easier method to even out the luck factor?

 

[Sparafucil3]

WRT playtesting, this is why experienced players are worth their weight in gold. Good players can visualize the what ifs and extrapolate what an alternative outcome could look like. Before you go changing the DR's, I would suggest you conduct a thought experiment. When the dice or great or bad, ask yourself if it would matter of you're playing the other side of the dice. Rolling a 2,2 on TH where the Final TH # is a 10 is hardly fortunate. Changing the dice for the sake of evening them out hardly reflect the temporal aspect of rolling well in the moment. I once played Jim Taylor in Sporck's 11. In his first turn, he rolls a 6,6 on the wind check creating falling snow. That whole turn I repeatedly missed shots by 1 pip. Even a 6,6 can be fortunate in the right circumstances. Anyone ever had the SMOKE covering your assault cleared by Gusts? I know I have. -- jim

 

[Actionjick]

WRT playtesting, this is why experienced players are worth their weight in gold. Good players can visualize the what ifs and extrapolate what an alternative outcome could look like. Before you go changing the DR's, I would suggest you conduct a thought experiment. When the dice are great or bad, ask yourself if it would matter of you're playing the other side of the dice. Rolling a 2,2 on TH where the Final TH # is a 10 is hardly fortunate. Changing the dice for the sake of evening them out hardly reflect the temporal aspect of rolling well in the moment. I once played Jim Taylor in Sporck's 11. In his first turn, he rolls a 6,6 on the wind check creating falling snow. That whole turn I repeatedly missed shots by 1 pip. Even a 6,6 can be fortunate in the right circumstances. Anyone ever had the SMOKE covering your assault cleared by Gusts? I know I have. -- jim

It also comes down to what the designer is looking for in the scenario: balance, fun, historical accuracy, all three or something else. Plus does the scenario still meet or come close to his criteria if the dice are extreme one way or another?


One suggestion would be to record the scenario at the point where you think the dice are having an undesirable impact. Then continue play with the dice rolls as normal and see what impact the undesirable rolls had on the outcome. Afterwards go back and play from the recorded point using one of the systems that give average results and compare the two outcomes. Just a thought.

Personally I think the preferred method would be multiple playings letting the dice fall as they may. I believe a designer would want to know how extreme dice affects his scenario. Probably best to ask the designer prior to playtesting how he wants it played, dice as they fall or averaged rolls.

 

[TopT]

WRT playtesting, this is why experienced players are worth their weight in gold. Good players can visualize the what ifs and extrapolate what an alternative outcome could look like. Before you go changing the DR's, I would suggest you conduct a thought experiment. When the dice are great or bad, ask yourself if it would matter of you're playing the other side of the dice. Rolling a 2,2 on TH where the Final TH # is a 10 is hardly fortunate. Changing the dice for the sake of evening them out hardly reflect the temporal aspect of rolling well in the moment. I once played Jim Taylor in Sporck's 11. In his first turn, he rolls a 6,6 on the wind check creating falling snow. That whole turn I repeatedly missed shots by 1 pip. Even a 6,6 can be fortunate in the right circumstances. Anyone ever had the SMOKE covering your assault cleared by Gusts? I know I have. -- jim

A few years ago I did some play test(s) with a very experienced player. He broke the first two scenarios we played, on the very first playing. We flipped sides and I was able to re-create what he had done with one of the scenarios but not with the second. The designer's were very experienced as well. The module lingers in "vaporware' purgatory.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I've been doings few playtest recently and a few of the games have seen some extreme dice skewing the game. While I have no problem with this in a normal game, once we are at the stage of trying to balance, it become harder if the Germans are constantly getting 2s and 3s while the Russians get 10s and 11s.
I was wondering how possible it might be to play son that 6s become 4s and 1s become 3s except for rate and breakdown purposes?
Thus a 1, 4 becomes a 7 with rate of 1. 6, 5 becomes a 9 unless you breakdown on an 11.
1,1 becomes 6 but heat of battle.

Not suggesting this for general play but for latervdtage playtesting.

I've often thought of doing something similar - replace the dice with three chits - 3, 7, 11. Never tried it, of course.

 

[Vinnie]

A few years ago I did some play test(s) with a very experienced player. He broke the first two scenarios we played, on the very first playing. We flipped sides and I was able to re-create what he had done with one of the scenarios but not with the second. The designer's were very experienced as well. The module lingers in "vaporware' purgatory.

It's a brave, and good, designer who is willing to shelve his baby.
I recall reporting back on a playtest that although the scenario worked, it was deadly dull and we did not enjoy it at all. He took it very badly.
Contrast that to another publisher to whom we gave a similar very negative feedback. He dropped thst from his pack and six months later contacted us to ask for more playtesting on another pack.

 

[Actionjick]

It's a brave, and good, designer who is willing to shelve his baby.
I recall reporting back on a playtest that although the scenario worked, it was deadly dull and we did not enjoy it at all. He took it very badly.
Contrast that to another publisher to whom we gave a similar very negative feedback. He dropped thst from his pack and six months later contacted us to ask for more playtesting on another pack.

An important aspect of playtesting, is the scenario fun and entertaining?

 

[Vic Provost]

It also comes down to what the designer is looking for in the scenario: balance, fun, historical accuracy, all three or something else. Plus does the scenario still meet or come close to his criteria if the dice are extreme one way or another?


One suggestion would be to record the scenario at the point where you think the dice are having an undesirable impact. Then continue play with the dice rolls as normal and see what impact the undesirable rolls had on the outcome. Afterwards go back and play from the recorded point using one of the systems that give average results and compare the two outcomes. Just a thought.

Personally I think the preferred method would be multiple playings letting the dice fall as they may. I believe a designer would want to know how extreme dice effects his scenario. Probably best to ask the designer prior to playtesting how he wants it played, dice as they fall or averaged rolls.

That is what we do at Dispatches, we play as often as we can, letting the dice fall as they please. For playtesting only, me and Tom offer each other one Mulligan a game to reverse a since DR or dr and re-roll. Once used it is gone and the dice are what they are. Save it for something important.

Has worked for us the past 24+ years. Using precision dice also takes the question of dice quality out of it. I always use my Battle School Dice if playing ftf, I hope to use them again later this year with someone, Vic.

 

[Actionjick]

That is what we do at Dispatches, we play as often as we can, letting the dice fall as they please. For playtesting only, me and Tom offer each other one Mulligan a game to reverse a since DR or dr and re-roll. Once used it is gone and the dice are what they are. Save it for something important.

Has worked for us the past 24+ years. Using precision dice also takes the question of dice quality out of it. I always use my Battle School Dice if playing ftf, I hope to use them again later this year with someone, Vic.

The poll awhile back about how many scenarios you play a year got me wondering about how the apparent decrease in scenarios played affected playtesting. This thought came back to me when I initially read this thread. Were average dice roll systems being used because playtesters weren't able to play as much as bitd? I'm glad to see that it appears playtesters are giving each scenario multiple playings. Well done to all of you who undertake this very important work. I know it's more fun to play what is already available but with the seemingly insatiable demand for new scenarios the work has to be done to ensure the quality of new products.

 

[MichalS]

I once played Jim Taylor in Sporck's 11. In his first turn, he rolls a 6,6 on the wind check creating falling snow. That whole turn I repeatedly missed shots by 1 pip. Even a 6,6 can be fortunate in the right circumstances. Anyone ever had the SMOKE covering your assault cleared by Gusts? I know I have. -- jim

I get your point Jim - even though in Sporck's Eleven there is Falling Snow with no Wind Change DR by SSR in the very first round. (When I played the defender in this scenario the last weekend in the Ersatz League, on my third turn I rolled a 3 on a Wind Change and the snowing stopped, which was a major benefit to me as a defender.) Perhaps you witnessed a later increasing strength in precipitation...

In any case I very much agree with your observation about unequal significance of individual situations in which a player is rolling. No matter what the DR average is, if one had the possibility to assign the statistically correctly distributed values across the individual rolls in one game, it would be a quick game indeed.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I get your point Jim - even though in Sporck's Eleven there is Falling Snow with no Wind Change DR by SSR in the very first round.

The SSR is there now because I bitched and whinged like a baby during the playtest. You can thank me later.

(When I played the defender in this scenario the last weekend in the Ersatz League, on my third turn I rolled a 3 on a Wind Change and the snowing stopped, which was a major benefit to me as a defender.) Perhaps you witnessed a later increasing strength in precipitation...

When Jim and I played it, nearly every turn time he rolled the WC, the snow started and every time I rolled the WC, the snow stopped. I recall being screwed multiple times but the snow starting/stopping when it hurt me the most. -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

Using precision dice also takes the question of dice quality out of it.

Using precision dice takes the question of dice quality into it.
Or more that of dice superstition.

Just sayin'...

von Marwitz

 

[Bill Kohler]

Before you go changing the DR's, I would suggest you conduct a thought experiment. When the dice are great or bad, ask yourself if it would matter of you're playing the other side of the dice. Rolling a 2,2 on TH where the Final TH # is a 10 is hardly fortunate.

This.

Simply reporting the average DRs at the end of a scenario overlooks two important factors:
--The timing of the rolls as Jim mentions: rolling HoBs on PTCs, or critical hits on WC DRs, and rolling a 3 when a 6 would've given the same final effect.
--The random walk issue: As more DRs are made, the average DR will always tend closer to 7, but the "random walk" will always grow too.

To understand random walk imagine a simple war game: you have a single row of hexes with the FEBA counter placed exactly in the center. Every turn you flip a coin: heads, the FEBA moves 1 space west; tails, the FEBA moves 1 space east. The longer you play, the ratio of heads to tails will grow closer to 50%, but the distance the FEBA is from the starting point will grow too. E.g., the more random events there are, the fairer the averages will become, but also the more one player will rack up single-hex victories than the other player does.

Note: I'm not at all dissing dice--they make ASL fun. And dice will play an important role in deciding games between equally matched players, but the best players (of which I am not one) will find ways to minimize their exposure to bad dice when they are winning and will find ways to overcome poor dice when they are losing.