Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Random v. Control rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kyle King
Canada
flag msg tools
From the descriptions given, I would say try to focus on the first one.

Out of interest, what was the reasoning behind 3d4? Sure its much less random then 1d12, but seems to be a little arbitrary. Reading just the description, have you tried making the static numbers the number of dice you roll? To use the example you posted:
Quote:
For example, a Survivor might have a +2 in Strength. That Survivor might also have an Ally that gives +1 in Strength. That Survivor's controller may try to play a new Ally that has a Strength Difficulty 8. Given that (x + 2 + 1 = 8) a player has to rule a minimum of 5 (with a range 3 - 12) in order to successfully play the card.

So, say you always roll 1 die for any action, then add X dice of the same type for each stat. So, you would be rolling
1 (all rolls get 1) + 2 (2 strength) + 1 (Ally) = 4d4. Which would be roughly 10 on average for that action.

This would add a slight bit more randomness to the actions, but also improves the value of the static bonuses. Though, you would then need to balance how many dice you roll for an action you have 0 static bonuses in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
todd sanders
United States
pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
what is the proportional range of a 3 to 12 roll and can you use that bell curve more effectively in your rolling?

i think rolling dice is ok as long ss the player is able to spend resources to modify the roll in their fsvor. but that expense shoild be costly
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Koen Hendrix
Netherlands
Barendrecht
Zuid-Holland
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mb
I prefer the first option, but with some reservations about the randomness.

If the dice-roll adds a simple 'succeeds or fails' filter to every card play, it's all a bit random, especially in competitive play. Example: Me and my opponents might both have 4 cards we want to play in hand, each with a 75% chance of succeeding, but though sheer luck I only get to place 1 while he succeeds for all 4. I can appreciate the narrowness of your bell curve, but this still feels too random.

You need to add something that balances out the randomness (to some extent), but keeps the tension. For example, you might limit the number of successfully played cards to 1 (or 2). So if you succeed your roll, you play that card and you're done. If you fail the roll, you may choose another card, until you either run out of playable cards or you succeed. In the example above, me and my opponent would both have gotten 1 card out, only he got his preferred card out, while I failed my first three rolls and ended up with a lesser card (for now).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Lacock
United States
Wylie
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the 2nd option for myself. I will admit being biased to it though as I am using a somewhat similar mechanic myself.

If the path cards have different types of resources then it puts the players into a position to adjust their play according to the resource types/amounts they have available. This adds to the decision making in the game. If you already have enough variability built into the game and enough interesting decisions then dice might be best though.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls