Deck dice / fair dice

djohannsen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
762
Reaction score
620
Location
Within 800 meters.
Country
llUnited States
is of opinion that deck dice or some other implementation resulting in guaranteed (?) fair roll results would be much better.
A "random shuffle" of a deck is almost impossible. My mind reels when thinking about how non-random the result would be if dice were replaced by a deck.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
It is indeed very difficult to properly shuffle a card deck, but I don't think it's that bad when you shuffle the deck before each draw - what is bad is that it's hard to break sequences and correlations, not that it's hard to randomize the top card.

But - yes. My only disagreement with JRV's latest message is over the "expected middle distribution". When rolling dice, it is to be expected that some deviation from the "expected" frequencies will be observed. If you roll your dice 72 times and get 2/12 exactly twice each, 3/11 exactly three times, etc, then your dice are really weird. I know this is something most people have trouble accepting, but this is what mathematics (and probability theory) predict - and it is what some people want to "correct" with the idea of randomizing from a deck.

(Fun story: back in the 90s when I was going to my first Magic: the Gathering tournament, I wanted to really randomize my deck, really properly. So I did: I laid my whole deck before me [face down, though it wouldn't have mattered], then I repeated this: picked a random number from 1 to 60, picked up the corresponding card; picked a random number from 1 to 59, picked up the corresponding card from those remaining; and so on. I'm not 100% sure how I did the random picking; either I rolled appropriate dice, like 2d10 to make a result between 1 and 100, with rerolls whenever needed, or I used a pocket calculator's RND function. That took me at least an hour... I never did it again, of course.)
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
It would be maddening to reshuffle for every DR. Only makes sense to use a deck to ensure some amount of averaging. Otherwise, dice are the only way to go. Alternatively, you could write a program (or excel spreadsheet) that softly self averages the DR's...
Steve
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A "random shuffle" of a deck is almost impossible. My mind reels when thinking about how non-random the result would be if dice were replaced by a deck.
To be fair to the original poster, I think I understand what he is trying to achieve. It is maddening to watch your opponent streak off with 4, 3, 3, 2 (leader-led), 6 (with ROF), 3, "hey, where did all my targets go?" from his heavy machine guns. There is nothing in the ASL rules that requires that the dice be "fair" in the sense of each DR being independent of all others. Depending on the parameters of the deck and the current history of the draws, a constrained-deck draw would make such a streak less likely or impossible. I don't think this suggestion can be thrown out without some consideration. Unlike, say, an election where fairness is an overwhelming goal, we are looking at the design of a game. Our randomizer (i.e. a DR in ASL) is not even a goal of the game, but a part to achieve that goal. We might choose not to use memory-less dice if that made the game "better," and that would be ok. Although they are convenient, I have no religious attachment to dice as our randomization mechanism.

One question would be, how does such a change affect the play of the game? With deck-dice, card counting becomes possible. If I have a four-deck stack (144 cards) and I see that early in the deck two twelves are already gone, I may be more inclined to take a shot with a breakable weapon because I know my chances of breaking the weapon have about halved. It would depend on the configuration of the deck stack and the frequency of shuffling on how profitable it would be to count cards, but I believe that the less profitable it is count cards (by more frequent shuffling and/or larger deck sizes), the more your deck behaves like physical dice and give less of the behavior of constrained-deck draw.

One thing I have not mentioned before is that the behavior of the randomization changes when you are at the shuffle-point. Say you have a four-deck stack. It is physically impossible to "roll" five twos in close proximity if there will be no shuffle. But it is physically possible if "close proximity" includes the shuffle-point. The behavior of the randomization is not the same when there is a shuffle-point in the sequence. The behavior of the randomization is not uniform: there are times when different things are possible.

Another question would be, does this address the question of "fairness?" Deck-dice do make certain patterns of results less likely, but it is player-neutral if the players are drawing from the same stack. One player may still be more blessed than the other. If the players have different decks, the deck-size has to be tailored to the number of draws the player will be making if one player will be making more draws than the other.

But the ultimate question is whether this improves the enjoyment of the game, which I think is the proper goal of this exercise in game design. On this point players may reasonably disagree. I think that card-counting makes it an undesirable change. Even if no one does, its possibility attacks the integrity of the game. I enjoy the game less when I or my opponent counter-counts dummies. It's perfectly legal, and I will do it too at times, but it tarnishes the effect of uncertainty that dummies are meant to introduce. The odd change of randomization around a shuffle-point is an interesting artifact, but I don't think it would change my opinion one way or the other. The problem with fairness certainly diminishes my interest in a joint-deck system, and I think that having separate decks for each player is problematic in the ways I mentioned. For me overall it seems like deck-dice would make for a less enjoyable game.

That was a lot of nay-saying. Perhaps I should suggest some alternatives for consideration. What seems to be most objectionable are certain effects of DRs rather than the overall pattern of DRs. Rather than attacking the problem by altering the randomization mechanism directly, perhaps some other way could be found to address these. The separate ROF die should reduce "streakiness" of ROF weapons, for instance. Or perhaps ROF should decrease by one after the first ROF, or even after each ROF. Another example, there might be a rule added that says only the first weapon in a phase that rolls a twelve actually breaks. Or the later ones in a phase require a subsequent dr of one. This has its own side-effects, like suggesting that some weapons be used first in order to "soak off" the malfunction, but would mean that it would be difficult or impossible to destroy the only two ATGs in the scenario at one go, for example. The Pleva OBA draw pile is perhaps an example of this kind of very specific intervention, albeit not with the dice.
These sorts of ideas could even be introduces as SSRs, addressing what the designer considers the most essential aspect of the scenario rather than using a sixteen-inch shell to destroy a sniper.

As usual, YMMV.

JR
 

Steven Pleva

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,425
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
At the end of the day, you are trading one set of issues for a different set of issues. One has to decide which issues are more important...
Steve
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Card counting is not illegal.
The reason card counting in gambling is possible is actually an economic one. I think that gaming houses would prefer a completely random system for something like blackjack, i.e. a fresh, shuffled deck for each game. The house sets the payoffs so that if everything is perfectly random, they win (in the long run). I suspect the reason they don't shuffle between each play is because of the cost. The time spent shuffling is time that could be spent gambling, i.e. it's lost potential revenue. Having vast stacks of shuffled decks would also be a logistic problem.

JR
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Perhaps the only way to evaluate the fairness/fun factor of "this exercise in game design" would be to implement it in a tournament environment with a wide variety of test subjects. I would suggest that the 'dice cards' be mandated at one of the larger events such as ASLOK, Albany, or the Open. Any dice precision or otherwise would be prohibited.

Each set of opposing players would be issued a deck of dice cards. It shall be the responsibility of the tournament director to determine which of the suggested 72, 108, 144, or 180 multi decks of cards should be used.

In the spirit of the all important quest for fairness, the players will not be permitted to shuffle or otherwise handle the cards. The cards shall be shuffled be either an electronic/mechanical card shuffle device or by a qualified dealer, preferably with gaming industry training and experience. The determination of the card shuffling method will be the responsibility of the tournament director.

The cost of hiring the dealers or renting the card shuffling devices could be offset by an increase in tournament entry fees and/or an elimination of or reduction in the door prizes, raffle items, trophies and other swag.

Assuming that anyone actually registers for and participates in such a tournament, the resulting AAR's should provide a most revealing testament to the 'fun/fairness' factor when dice are replaced by cards in ASL.
 
Last edited:

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I have a friend who has a rather profound distaste for dice. "They ruin the game" and is of opinion that deck dice or some other implementation resulting in guaranteed (?) fair roll results would be much better.

I recently guided him and another friend through Retaking Vierville and and his frustration arose from the first roll onwards. He was rather silent though when dice were in his favor...
By all means, let's alter one of the basic mechanics of one of the best designed, most immersive and enjoyable war games ever created in order to accommodate those players who are either poor tacticians, sore losers, or both.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
By all means, let's alter one of the basic mechanics of one of the best designed, most immersive and enjoyable war games ever created in order to accommodate those players who are either poor tacticians, sore losers, or both.
I don't agree that the player who is objecting is necessarily one of those. The problem being addressed is a true problem. In certain scenarios certain DRs can destroy nearly all chance of winning, e.g. the loss of a key weapon at a key time to breakdown. Such a happenstance makes all the time spent on the scenario to that point "wasted" in some sense. I think everyone would like every scenario go to the last CC DR of the last turn. I think the proposed change would not achieve that goal and would cost something extra. I would be in favor of it if it did achieve that goal without cost.

JR
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
In certain scenarios certain DRs can destroy nearly all chance of winning, e.g. the loss of a key weapon at a key time to breakdown. Such a happenstance makes all the time spent on the scenario to that point "wasted" in some sense.
This is a valid concern, probably made more acute by the current trend in small scenarios. Scenario designers can always make SSRs to prevent early malfunction of key weapons ("This weapon has a -1DRM for malfunction purposes only, unless using Intensive/Sustained Fire, during the first 3 turns of the game", for instance). It won't change the fact that a lucky/unlucky sequence of DRs can leave a small OB decimated, though.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I don't agree that the player who is objecting is necessarily one of those. The problem being addressed is a true problem. In certain scenarios certain DRs can destroy nearly all chance of winning, e.g. the loss of a key weapon at a key time to breakdown. Such a happenstance makes all the time spent on the scenario to that point "wasted" in some sense.
JR
The 'real problem' in this example is not the dice but rather a flawed scenario design. I would agree that any time spent playing such a dog would indeed be a waste of time.
 

kcole4001

Stray Cat
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
455
Location
NorthEast
First name
Kevin
Country
llCanada
Dice work just fine, the OP's friend needs to work on his gaming manners, or play games without dice.
The system is not broken.

Using cards will work, but it takes more effort to achieve the same result as using dice.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
[QUOTE="] I think everyone would like every scenario go to the last CC DR of the last turn.

JR[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily.
 

kcole4001

Stray Cat
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
455
Location
NorthEast
First name
Kevin
Country
llCanada
I'd like every scenario to at least be winnable by both players until the last player turn.

Then at least you won't feel cheated out of your time setting up, and hopefully both players learn something from each other and enjoy the time spent.
That's why I play, if it's not going to be any fun, I'll do something else that is.
 

Jeff Sewall

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
535
Reaction score
152
Location
Pittsburgh
Country
llUnited States
The reason card counting in gambling is possible is actually an economic one. I think that gaming houses would prefer a completely random system for something like blackjack, i.e. a fresh, shuffled deck for each game. The house sets the payoffs so that if everything is perfectly random, they win (in the long run). I suspect the reason they don't shuffle between each play is because of the cost. The time spent shuffling is time that could be spent gambling, i.e. it's lost potential revenue. Having vast stacks of shuffled decks would also be a logistic problem.
Which is why the Continuous Shuffling Machine (CSM) was invented and put into play by many casinos. Probably a little cost prohibitive for the typical ASL player --- wait, what am I saying?
 
Top