For American-style gamers, I think randomness that provides meaningful narrative content can be very satisfying, even if it creates surmountable setbacks. Utterly debilitating randomness is senseless and frustrating, so balance is paramount. Mitigation opportunities can provide this balance, as you’ve mentioned, and can give you the best of both worlds. After all, there’s nothing that generates a feeling of epic heroism like a world-shattering calamity overcome by the cunning use of one’s abilities. It’s what makes RPG’s so thrilling, satisfying, and memorable. The depth of play for experienced RPG’ers is unrivaled by anything else in tabletop format - despite randomness - and it’s made possible by the mitigation provided by the dungeon master and the experience and skill of the players. I think your recommendation that designers avoid common randomness tropes in early designs is sound council because it creates a richer learning opportunity. Thanks for the quality video.
i think of dice as representing real life things you can't explain in a game. it's random in the way life is random. a 1 might represent obstacles in a path, a 6 a clear path with a downward slope. a 6 might be a lucky punch, a 1 you lose your balance and your opponent acts on that. as an aside, i get kind of tired of people dunking on 'monopoly.' that game will outlast every one of those games by 50 years. in 2124, ppl will still be playing it in some form or other. the reason is that, despite its shortcomings, it's fun and engages with people. while i think the 'hero quest' example is rather extreme, yeah, it's a possibility. most times you're not going to lose a game because you pulled an event card, and if you do you were probably on the verge of losing anyway, e.g. if you had to go to a railroad and pay in 'monopoly,' and that's what bankrupted you, you weren't going to last long anyway. it's funny, too, that for so many modern games, when i hear what the mechanic is, it's like, oh, yeah, that's like that parker brothers game from 1972. i get it, though, sometimes you don't want chance at all. chess would be absolutely ruined if you had to roll a die. but, rolling dice is suspenseful, fun, and gives people an opportunity for a classic comeback.
This video is very old now - it was the first video I made about game design (the first of hundreds) and I think I articulated my point badly. It was supposed to say “new game designers reach for dice too quickly to solve problems in their designs” but it came off as me ranting about disliking dice. For the record, I love dice in games when used effectively. I even designed my own dice game “Thrown”. Here is a video I made where I talk about brilliant games which use the “Roll and move”‘ mechanism very effectively. ua-cam.com/video/Fflv2nCikrs/v-deo.htmlsi=I7nBvsB66EIox7Pl I also made a video a few years ago making a similar point to you about Monopoly’s value and legacy: ua-cam.com/video/SJ39fnLUpkQ/v-deo.htmlsi=RMEmTolBxalVWeCc And finally I revisited that point about “Dice are not the answer” in a video this week: ua-cam.com/video/3D8omU-Ejj4/v-deo.htmlsi=b0lPMYFGTj3Xqmxs
@@AdaminWales i understand, and i agree to the extent that dice shouldn't be the only game mechanic in your book. it's definitely more challenging for someone my age *not* to rely on dice since that's what i grew up on, milton bradley and parker brothers type stuff.
I was all prepared to argue with you based on the title of the video, but you did make it clear at the start it was more about the lack of agency rather than the use of Dice generally. I've designed several Dice forward games, starting with Dice of Crowns. I agree that pure randomness is not a great design mechanism to base a game on. If the roll of the dice allows agency for the player then I think it's workable. Interesting video, thanks.
Man dice get a bad rap. The greatness of dice is that no matter what the chance for something happening is always the same. Unlike a deck which (unless you shuffle after every draw) will have a increasing chance to get a certain card. Dice can be very interesting if you push into making choices after you too the dice. Dead of winter is a perfect example. You roll the dice and they become the action points you use.
Thanks for posting this. Dice are not the answer (for injecting excitement or randomness into a game) and doing the same basic thing with event decks or some other cards is not the answer either. Meaningful choices but not overwhelming choices is what the game needs. I was thinking this before seeing your video, so it was good to get a confirmation on this point. Again thanks.
Interesting video. I personally enjoy moderate use of dice, I mean some games just don't need it but it adds an element of suspense in certain games. The exposure roll in DoW for example, always scares me lol. The game I'm designing has a dice mechanic but I'm hoping it won't hinder it
Me too! Here is a video I made about designing strategic games with dice at their core: How to design a strategic DICE Game ua-cam.com/video/11s95ETB2F8/v-deo.html The intent of the video “Dice are not the answer” was to dissuade new designers from relying on dice to solve problems in their designs. When used well, dice are incredibly exciting. When used carelessly or naively, they can ruin otherwise promising designs.
The last time I've seen Roll for Combat used in an interesting way is in the video game Dicey Dungeons. At your turn, you roll your 2 to 6 dice, and then choose your abilities (called Equipments) based on your rolls. Equipments are randomly drawn after a battle. You can only have 3-6 equipments available in a battle. Example equipments: - Broadsword : deals [dice] + 2 damage (can be used once per turn) - Dagger : deals [dice] damage (can be used three times per turn, needs dice values 1, 2, or 3 to activate this equipment) - Fire Crystal : deals [dice] damage, burn 1 opponent's dice (burn: when the burning dice is used, take 2 damage) (once per turn, needs even dice values) - Freeze Spell : deals 5 damage, freezes 2 opponent's dice (freeze: after rolling, set the two highest rolled dice to 1) (once per turn, needs dice value 1) - Half-Moon Charm : gain a dice with value 6. Requires any amount of dice totaling up to 6 to use. (once per turn) - Rubber Mallet : deal [dice] damage. On a 1, the dice is not expended. Reroll it. (once per turn) - Rubber Mallet+ : deal [dice] damage. On an odd value, the dice is not expended. Reroll it. (once per turn) - Rubber Mallet- : deal [dice] damage. On a 1, the dice is not expended. Reroll it. Needs odd dice value to activate. (once per turn) - Saw Wave : Needs two dice adding up to exactly 7. Returns a 1 and a 6. (once per turn) - Shockwave : Needs two dice. Deal [dice1 + dice2] total damage. Weakens 1 opponent's equipment. (equipment becomes its equipment- variant for 1 round) (once per turn)
4 years later I’ve discovered your channel and I’m absolutely loving it. I’m so grateful to you for taking the time to share your insider perspective on game design. Even if we do disagree on gambling games and delayed resolution. 😜💙👍
Thanks. I appreciate all your observations, but it is good to be aware that randomness can help achieve some worthy objectives if used well. (1) When the game is placed in an unanticipated state, players explore more of the game space and have more varied experiences. This can actually *increase* the role of skill, as skilled players will be better at taking advantage of situations they have not previously experienced or memorized. (2) In friendly/family games, it is nice if players of different skill levels feel they still have a chance of winning. If my little brother wins only 30% of the games, I still have the satisfaction of knowing I am the more skilled player, but he is encouraged by seeing that it is possible to win and that his win rate might improve. Only a very determined learner will continue to play a game after losing dozens of times in a row. (3) If the randomness doesn't produce large swings in the game, it can add some fun and variety to the experience without making it feel unfair to the skilled players who have worked hard to bring the game to a desired state.
I don’t agree with much of what you said. You gave an example board game with roll to move, an event/treasure card, and roll for combat. The only alternative there would be to resolve with cards or not make the game. Since you gave a worst case scenario for dice, let me give you one with cards. Your character has a movement of 2 when enemies are adjacent. You decide to move two spaces. Then the event/treasure is triggered after your movement. This card spawns the enemy with an attack of five. The only cards in your hand will not give you enough defense to protect from that attack, or you character just naturally doesn’t have a defense stat high enough. If you would have only chose a character with better movement or defense like your other friends playing with you or could have drawn a better card... In this situation I would much rather have rolled dice. At least if I got to roll dice I would have felt that I had a chance of a good outcome rather than none at all. Just because the games behind you don’t use dice to move only proves that you don’t play games where you roll and move. You couldn’t be more wrong when you say games with dice should only be designed by the experienced. The vast majority of people who want to design games to be published will have played and own many games. They will also be smart enough to know they will need it play tested by many people. They would use that feedback to make adjustments in the game. To think that only the experienced are smart enough to make a game with a fun and functional dice mechanic is a little arrogant. There is no better way to learn to make a game with dice mechanics, then through your own failure and feedback from ones you try and make. If one simply doesn’t try to make a game like that due to inexperience, they will never get better at doing so. Some of the bad things that can happen in games by luck or chance don’t always mean it’s a bad game. For one thing, randomness increases replayability. Second, if you’re losing, you still feel like you have a chance. If you already know there is nothing you can physically do to win, and there is no random/luck factor, the less likely you will want to finish the game or play at your full potential. When this happens it can make others experience of the game worse. People should always feel invested in the game. When you take out randomness, you create an optimal way to play the game. Then you don’t have people exploring all facets of the game. Instead, they know that in order to compete to win they have to use certain strategies/cards/factions which can also take the fun out of the game.
These are good thoughts, and your last paragraph is especially on point. When there is no randomness in a game, then there is an optimal way to play the game, and people who play the game a lot will have this optimal way figured out. In that case, the game becomes boring because only the optimal strategy has a chance to win the game. There is no incentive to try new strategies. Now the more complex the game is, the longer it will take to figure out the optimal strategy, but eventually it will happen, and replayability will be no more. (Unless it's chess where there is literally not enough time in the world to figure out the optimal strategy).
"Hero Quest was one of my favorite games as a child. But here we see that's it's very random. So it's a bad game. So please don't think about the fact that it was one of my favorite games as a child. That doesn't count. The fact that I don't like it now counts."
Heroquest was number 33 on my Top 100 games of all time. It’s a game I love. Roll and move is one mechanism - and it’s not utilised well here. But that was standard in 1989. We’ve learned so much about game design since then. Heroquest is a product of its time, and it still has tons to offer.
I think dice rolls or random events are an excellent way of spicing up things... if they simultaneously apply to everyone around the table and not just the dice roller / card picker. It's still random, but it's not ganging on the unlucky ones
Good point about event decks. I was thinking about adding that stuff to one of the games I'm designing but now I see how frustrating that mechanic can be.
You don’t actually see event decks all that often in modern published games, but I still see them cropping up in a lot of prototypes from new designers. I hope you have a few new ideas to try out! :)
Good analysis overall. I agree on most the points you make. Clear communication. A few additions even if it is 4 years late. Hero quest also one of my childhood favourites may not be the best example here. As pointed out you can not search for treasure if monsters are present for exactly the reason to prevent being overwhelmed. Also it is inherently a cooperative game (for the heroes at least). This means that dice rolls as a group average out and you have to make strategic and tactical choices to compensate for bad luck randomness. E.g. wizard could fling a healing spell on the elf instead attacking for 1 damage. You can chose to position yourself behind a meat shield etc. Chance becomes an extra obstacle for the group to overcome, not sth that hurts the individual player.
I agree - and I really enjoy Heroquest! Nonetheless it is a bit heavy on chance by modern standards, and I don’t have many roll and move games in my collection, which is why I used it as the example. There are certainly worse examples out there!
Very thoughtful and interesting video. You gave great explanations and offered excellent insight as to exactly how randomness can frustrate a game experience. it was quite edifying. Thanks!!
Great video. I'm fairly new to board game design. I'm designing a game that uses bravery checks to see if forest animals are too scared to explore certain areas. The bravery check mechanic is dice, and depending on how fearful a location, more or less dice are added. Players can alter the check by playing different cards and can choose where they go based on the equipment they have. They can also acquire re-rolls for purifying certain locations. All that said, there is some randomness in my game, but I'm hoping the other aspects that increase player agency will balance it out. Tbh, I don't see how I could completely do away with randomness in the game, specifically the core mechanic of the bravery check using a number of dice with icons based on how scary a location is. If someone has an idea how to make this type of check even less random, please do share!
Hi Adam, I stumbled upon this video and found it extremely helpful as a new designer! I would love to learn more about the differences between old game mechanics and modern mechanics. What mechanics should I avoid to prevent a game from feeling dated? And what are players and publishers looking for in modern games? Are there any videos that cover this? If not maybe this could be an idea for a future video for your channel 😋
The notion that random outcomes inherently negate strategy is wrong on so many levels. If all players are subject to the same independent trials, this should advise strategy. A well-balanced use of dice and randomness makes games exciting. Games that are played without random inputs are often "solvable" or essentially prescribe "correct openings" and can dictate strategies.
Chad Patrick I agree. A well-balanced use of dice and randomness is great! I love many games like this, and I have designed games with a high degree of randomness. I’ve made many videos about dice games and light card games that I love. I’ve also sat through hundreds of hours of prototypes from first-time designers, at the weekly game design group I run, and far too often excessive randomness kills their first designs. It is frequently totally overwhelming. This was the purpose of the video - to try and persuade new designers to be more imaginative and not fall into that trap.
I am probably not so wary of randomness in game design as you, though I agree that non-random mechanics to be deep and engaging requires much more expertise. I think that the key question is balancing the degree to which random events influence the overall course of gameplay. As a keen card games player (standard deck) I enjoy randomness in these games where ultimately it's after all the player's skill that determines the final outcome, no matter how difficult or chaotic the deal turned out to be. Very interesting and inspiring channel and great presentations, thx.
I agree with you. I’m not sure I articulated my point well in this older video. I was trying to persuade NEW designers that randomness was a dangerous element to rely on in their games. But it came across that I hated randomness. Not the case at all. I’ve just seen it overpower too many prototype games from new designers.
@@AdaminWales Yes, exactly that's the point. I don't like d&d dice roll-based mechanics either, especially when it is decisive to the point of abruptly ending the whole game in failure. I don't actually play RPG games but I suppose this kind of randomness can be balanced in a longer run, when statistics levels chaotic component so that strategic skills of a player tend to outweight influence of chaos. Similar to many brilliant card games, like say contract bridge and the like.
This video should be #1 on every board game designer's check list. Pre-luck memoryless randomness (dice) should be avoided. Single tiered event decks should be avoided.
FANTASTIC video, Adam! you break things down + explain them in a brilliant way. I completely agree with you on everything you said (us Cardiffians must have game design instinct lol!). And this is coming from someone who loves hybrid games, with plenty of theme AND strategy AND just a slice of luck/unpredictability to prevent it from becoming just a maths problem. For example have a look at my playtested variant for Mission Red Planet 2nd Ed on bgg: boardgamegeek.com/thread/1680120/less-chaotic-more-strategic-mission-red-planet Keep up the good work, can't wait for the next video in the series! Regards, Salman
Speaking of old games that you use roll and move and lots of other randomness, I used to play Talisman a lot back in the day. I considered it my favourite board game. There are some that reckoned that Games Workshop didn't do enough play testing of this particular game. This is apparent because one of the characters, the Prophetess, had an unfair advantage over the other characters. She was considered too powerful by some. If you were playing the Prophetess, you could draw an extra Adventure card and discard any one of those cards that she didn't want, often avoiding disaster. Some friends of mine who had Talisman actually banned the Prophetess. No one was allowed to play her. Clearly, she was too much of a good thing. However, from a modern board game perspective, perhaps the Prophetess isn't such a problematic character after all. She has a choice when she's drawing and viewing those Adventure cards. And that's what we generally want in a modern board game - a choice. If more characters had such choices available to them or had different kinds of choices, it would likely balance things out. Food for thought.
Good point. Just giving a simple choice makes all the difference. Talisman was a world ahead of other games around when it was released - because after your dice roll you could CHOOSE to go left or right. That was immediately twice the choices available in most popular games!!
@@AdaminWales Oh yea exactly! I thought it was really innovative that you could choose to go left or right with Talisman. I felt less restrictive compared to other board games. And the different regions (outer, inner etc) were a great concept too. It wasn't too long ago when someone on an online forum said that Talisman felt like Monopoly in a fantasy skin. I don't quite agree there but I can certainly see the similarities!
I would say dice make Pandemic The Cure or whatever it was called with all those dice far more tense. Sadly with the card version you can "game" the outbreaks as you know whats coming ahead....dice make it far more random and dangerous which i think fits the game I would say that taking out roll snd move spils some games. I recall Stop Thief and Restoration games took out the roll and move element which made the game silly Part of the fun of the original version with roll and move was working out where the thief was but it being a chance youd get to them in time
You’re right, the movement in Tokaido is elegant. At first I thought it would be imbalanced. But it works really well and you always know whose turn it is.
Manilla is a weird one, you do roll and then move something.... but it doesn't feel like I could call it Rolls and Move. I think it has to be specific to an avatar because of the critical importance of positioning of an Avatar. In manilla, what the roll is actually moving are the odds of something happening. I feel its very well applied in that situation and it has non of the drawbacks I would normally cite for roll and move.
I think in general there are two types of gamer; those who prefer skill-based games and those who prefer luck-based games, though I don't think it's quite as simple as saying that people prefer one or the other, I think there's probably a range with people forming a normal distribution along it. I also think mood and company can be factors. I really enjoy playing chess for example, but my enjoyment of it depends on finding someone of a similar skill level to play against, it's the last game that I'd want to play if I knew that I would win or lose each match in advance. I think that's where dice games and other luck-based mechanics come into their own, they serve as a great equaliser. Though that said, they can also introduce their own form of skill via probability management.
Well, roll and move mechanics were simplified in our times. Ancient games deal with this mechanics in more ellegant and thoughtful way - vide totally dice dependant but very strategic backgammon, royal game of ur, senet etc. Ancient people just knew how to do such games.
Agreed, it's fascinating that backgammon managed to use dice as strategizable input randomness, 2000 whole years before some games of 20th and 21st century use them as sources of sorta cheap excitement Verflixxt/That's Life does feel very backgammon-y though
how many of those kinds of games are there, though? not to mention how many centuries did it take to develop into what we know today? let's be fair, how many ancient games sucked? lol.
Thanks Juan! Always good to hear positive feedback! Disappointing day today with a big knockback from a publisher on one of my designs, so I'm pleased to hear that the video was well received! :)
Nice work, and great advice. It's easy to get lost in "things happen = fun" mentality where player agency is lost. looking forward to the next in the series.
Not sure if you look at old videos @Adam in Wales but I have a question for the roll movement topic. I am currently designing a game where each character has a movement of 4 but they also add 1d6 to the movement. The board is 7x7, small and chaotic battle game with spaceships. This combines the two standard options for movement in board games that you mentioned. What do you think about that or have you seen it fail/succeed before?
D6 + 4 gives you a range of 5-10 movement. That’s quite a big range - so it will feel very random unless there are other ways to alter the dice results. But it’s likely to be less devastating that a classic D6 dice roll where a roll of 1 is FAR worse than a roll of 6. It totally depends on the game - you’ll only find out whether it provides a good player experience by testing it. For a short duration game with a great theme, this might be fine. For a longer game with lots of strategic choices, the luck might feel out of sync with the rest of the game.
@@AdaminWales Appreciate the reply. It is a short action style game (30m). I think I am going to test Movement Speed of 5 next run with no additional dice and see how it goes.
Really great points, thanks for sharing your knowledge, Adam! I've been playing with my own designs for fun and your videos are helping me a lot with some concepts!
Wow, so many useful tips in this video. This is exactly what I was looking for! Adam, what do you think about using dice for combat, but applying different sorts of modifiers to minimize the chance of failure?
Toni Šare Dice for combat has been the default since the 1970s & I’m not sure that anyone has found a satisfactory alternative. Lots of people enjoy it very much. I don’t like combat much in games anyway (but I do really like dice games!) So basically, I think dice combat with modifiers is fine - but I would be most impressed by a designer who managed to innovate & create a new system (card-based; based around negotiation; etc.) I like the Star Wars Destiny game, which uses dice for combat with cardplay to modify dice results. But this is too convoluted a system for a bigger game. Thanks for watching! :)
Gloomhaven uses cards for combat, which I think gives enough variation on success without the game becoming miserable when I roll snake eyes four times in a row for a game that needs sixes. I’m sad that “Dice Hate Me” games got bought out because I really identified with that studio name. 😅
Sebasculin I find it in bad taste too. Of course, it’s a bit of a sci-fi trope: impregnated by aliens; and the title of the card is a comedy film reference. But it doesn’t come together well for the reasons you mention. Fortunately, I don’t think these weird little cards are anything more than an oddity for diehard collectors.
What are your thoughts on dice with averaged results? For example, I've been working on a game that uses dice for combat resolution, but the standard dice are D6 with damage results [0,1,1,1,1,2]. This makes it so it adds only a small margin of randomness, as the results average out to be the number of dice rolled. So if I have a total combat strength of 5 I roll 5 dice, and am likely to get 4-6 damage, but usually 5. This makes it so your choices matter but you can never be 100% sure. There are potentially higher risk/reward dice with results [0,0,1,1,2,2] for specific purposes(heavy/slow, explosions, etc.). Just wondering if this is still a poor inclusion of dice in your opinion.
Hi, I think that sounds like an interesting system. Clearly, the wider the range of possible outcomes, the more swingy the game becomes - rolling a D6 will have less variable results than a D20. In your version, the randomness is significantly muted. I think dice for combat (or indeed for movement or other events) is fine so long as the players have opportunities to mitigate the randomness. They could choose to spend time gathering re-roll/modifier abilities to ensure they can modify their dice rolls to achieve success; or alternatively save time by attempting a random roll with no modifiers - risking success or failure. That sort of system works well. If you are ensuring that players have some agency - and that their decisions decide the winner of the game, rather than blind luck, then you’re on the right track. (As a caveat, I do enjoy some very light, short games where luck often decides the winner - but these tend to be mass-market titles, and not very marketable or popular in the hobby space).
@@AdaminWales Thanks for the reply! I'm the kind of player who hates dice normally(Imo, Talisman's Poltergeist is a god-tier follower), but understand the need for some randomness in certain situations. Mainly I'm intending to occasionally use randomness just to bridge the skill gap ever so slightly so as to not alienate completely new players. As I think in a game that's designed for strategy AND excitement, a skilled player should win 80-90% of the time vs a lesser opponent. But imo, that other 10-20% should be there just to keep the skilled player engaged, the new player hopeful, and the games feeling close, even if the better player is expected to win. Nobody likes getting steamrolled. But of course in hard-strategy, high-skill-cap games, it's not necessarily the best approach. Suppose it just depends on the target audience.
that would be fine, imo, though personally i'd prefer custom die for ease of gameplay/quicker recognition/visual appeal. it gives the impression of quality, too.
I love this, thanks for confirming one of my main complaints. 3 of the games I'm currently designing are diceless, only 1 has a small integration of dice due to having a pirate theme which is a common trait, but most randomness is player action and the cards addition.
Great and very useful presentation. Just one minor criticism, you used the word “dice” throughout, which is correct for plural instances, but “die” is more traditional for a single instance.
Thanks for this video! What could be good prototype exercise to build for the first time designers? I did pick up and deliver fishing game but feel bad now that I put event deck there which you draft when you cross zones. Can you tell some good mechanism/ game type to test out to get to right track?
I think events are best when they can be anticipated. For example, players reveal an event at the start of the round. They can then deal with the event to mitigate any losses or penalties, before the event actually takes effect. Basically, give the players a bit of warning rather than springing a game-changing event on them. Dominant Species does this well: it presents a selection of events - all of which will come into play at the end of the round. Players can either use acions to take control of the events (thereby losing the possibility to do other useful stuff) or ignore the events and let them happen (take the hit).
Adam, are you saying that there isn't a future for 'roll and move' board games? It seems to me that most of the games you have stored are not of that ilk or is that by choice because of the games you design?
AceBanana100 I do think there is a future for roll and move games, but it needs to evolve as a mechanism. We see interesting roll and move mechanisms in games like Formula D and Merlin. Roll and move in it’s generic form will take a long time to disappear because many people are entirely unaware of the new breed of games - including toy and jigsaw companies who continue to produce low budget games with the mechanism. For many people, “roll and move” is synonymous with “board game”. When children design their first boardgame as a crafts project it is almost certain that it will feature “roll and move” along with action spaces like “miss a turn” or “go back 2 spaces”. I actually think there is fun to be had with the mechanism, in the right game, and the right environment. This video is not a call to eliminate the mechanism; it is intended as a tip to new designers that there are more modern approaches they can take to make their game interesting, fun, immersive, and relevant.
I think this all boils down to mindset and mental approach to games. I like the more chaotic more luck based games so roll and move is no issue for me. I would argue that a lot of games benefit from having a brain dead mechanism in it so you can socialise during the game. Just roll dice move. No analysis paralysis. Modern games often have too much going on in them so socialising DURING the game is minimal
Keindzjim The first two games are Doodle Rush and Big Bazar. They'll be released at Essen Spiel in October 2017 - and available through all the usual channels after that. Big Bazar is a worldwide edition. Doodle Rush is an English language edition. Hopefully other languages may follow. boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/232097/big-bazar boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/232090/doodle-rush My other games have yet to be formally announced. You can keep an eye on my website www.adamportergames.com for the most recent news!
10005999 Rewatching the video & not hearing the problem. Can you clarify? Is it too quiet? Too loud? Too grainy? Too much background noise? Or just my annoying voice?
10005999 Thanks for the feedback. I’m working with an iPhone so not too many options for improving the sound but maybe I’ll invest in some new equipment at some point! (I tried before & it was a disaster!) :)
Dice are not the answer ... except when they are.
that´s was the most usefull video for me as a game designer. Really an open mind lesson, thank you, I own you a great favor.
Glad it helped :)
For American-style gamers, I think randomness that provides meaningful narrative content can be very satisfying, even if it creates surmountable setbacks. Utterly debilitating randomness is senseless and frustrating, so balance is paramount. Mitigation opportunities can provide this balance, as you’ve mentioned, and can give you the best of both worlds. After all, there’s nothing that generates a feeling of epic heroism like a world-shattering calamity overcome by the cunning use of one’s abilities. It’s what makes RPG’s so thrilling, satisfying, and memorable. The depth of play for experienced RPG’ers is unrivaled by anything else in tabletop format - despite randomness - and it’s made possible by the mitigation provided by the dungeon master and the experience and skill of the players. I think your recommendation that designers avoid common randomness tropes in early designs is sound council because it creates a richer learning opportunity. Thanks for the quality video.
Llll
i think of dice as representing real life things you can't explain in a game. it's random in the way life is random. a 1 might represent obstacles in a path, a 6 a clear path with a downward slope. a 6 might be a lucky punch, a 1 you lose your balance and your opponent acts on that.
as an aside, i get kind of tired of people dunking on 'monopoly.' that game will outlast every one of those games by 50 years. in 2124, ppl will still be playing it in some form or other. the reason is that, despite its shortcomings, it's fun and engages with people.
while i think the 'hero quest' example is rather extreme, yeah, it's a possibility. most times you're not going to lose a game because you pulled an event card, and if you do you were probably on the verge of losing anyway, e.g. if you had to go to a railroad and pay in 'monopoly,' and that's what bankrupted you, you weren't going to last long anyway.
it's funny, too, that for so many modern games, when i hear what the mechanic is, it's like, oh, yeah, that's like that parker brothers game from 1972.
i get it, though, sometimes you don't want chance at all. chess would be absolutely ruined if you had to roll a die. but, rolling dice is suspenseful, fun, and gives people an opportunity for a classic comeback.
This video is very old now - it was the first video I made about game design (the first of hundreds) and I think I articulated my point badly. It was supposed to say “new game designers reach for dice too quickly to solve problems in their designs” but it came off as me ranting about disliking dice. For the record, I love dice in games when used effectively. I even designed my own dice game “Thrown”.
Here is a video I made where I talk about brilliant games which use the “Roll and move”‘ mechanism very effectively.
ua-cam.com/video/Fflv2nCikrs/v-deo.htmlsi=I7nBvsB66EIox7Pl
I also made a video a few years ago making a similar point to you about Monopoly’s value and legacy:
ua-cam.com/video/SJ39fnLUpkQ/v-deo.htmlsi=RMEmTolBxalVWeCc
And finally I revisited that point about “Dice are not the answer” in a video this week: ua-cam.com/video/3D8omU-Ejj4/v-deo.htmlsi=b0lPMYFGTj3Xqmxs
@@AdaminWales i understand, and i agree to the extent that dice shouldn't be the only game mechanic in your book. it's definitely more challenging for someone my age *not* to rely on dice since that's what i grew up on, milton bradley and parker brothers type stuff.
I was all prepared to argue with you based on the title of the video, but you did make it clear at the start it was more about the lack of agency rather than the use of Dice generally. I've designed several Dice forward games, starting with Dice of Crowns. I agree that pure randomness is not a great design mechanism to base a game on. If the roll of the dice allows agency for the player then I think it's workable. Interesting video, thanks.
Man dice get a bad rap. The greatness of dice is that no matter what the chance for something happening is always the same. Unlike a deck which (unless you shuffle after every draw) will have a increasing chance to get a certain card.
Dice can be very interesting if you push into making choices after you too the dice. Dead of winter is a perfect example. You roll the dice and they become the action points you use.
I love dice :) But playing loooong prototypes week after week, loaded with randomness can put you off! Haha.
Thanks for posting this.
Dice are not the answer (for injecting excitement or randomness into a game) and doing the same basic thing with event decks or some other cards is not the answer either. Meaningful choices but not overwhelming choices is what the game needs. I was thinking this before seeing your video, so it was good to get a confirmation on this point. Again thanks.
Glad you found it interesting!
Interesting video. I personally enjoy moderate use of dice, I mean some games just don't need it but it adds an element of suspense in certain games. The exposure roll in DoW for example, always scares me lol.
The game I'm designing has a dice mechanic but I'm hoping it won't hinder it
I play DoW in a manner that means I can avoid the dreaded Exposure Die at all costs (Die is in the name for a reason). 😱😜
I love dice and dice games. I love big games that utilize dice for various mechanisms.
Me too! Here is a video I made about designing strategic games with dice at their core:
How to design a strategic DICE Game
ua-cam.com/video/11s95ETB2F8/v-deo.html
The intent of the video “Dice are not the answer” was to dissuade new designers from relying on dice to solve problems in their designs. When used well, dice are incredibly exciting. When used carelessly or naively, they can ruin otherwise promising designs.
The last time I've seen Roll for Combat used in an interesting way is in the video game Dicey Dungeons.
At your turn, you roll your 2 to 6 dice, and then choose your abilities (called Equipments) based on your rolls.
Equipments are randomly drawn after a battle. You can only have 3-6 equipments available in a battle.
Example equipments:
- Broadsword : deals [dice] + 2 damage (can be used once per turn)
- Dagger : deals [dice] damage (can be used three times per turn, needs dice values 1, 2, or 3 to activate this equipment)
- Fire Crystal : deals [dice] damage, burn 1 opponent's dice (burn: when the burning dice is used, take 2 damage) (once per turn, needs even dice values)
- Freeze Spell : deals 5 damage, freezes 2 opponent's dice (freeze: after rolling, set the two highest rolled dice to 1) (once per turn, needs dice value 1)
- Half-Moon Charm : gain a dice with value 6. Requires any amount of dice totaling up to 6 to use. (once per turn)
- Rubber Mallet : deal [dice] damage. On a 1, the dice is not expended. Reroll it. (once per turn)
- Rubber Mallet+ : deal [dice] damage. On an odd value, the dice is not expended. Reroll it. (once per turn)
- Rubber Mallet- : deal [dice] damage. On a 1, the dice is not expended. Reroll it. Needs odd dice value to activate. (once per turn)
- Saw Wave : Needs two dice adding up to exactly 7. Returns a 1 and a 6. (once per turn)
- Shockwave : Needs two dice. Deal [dice1 + dice2] total damage. Weakens 1 opponent's equipment. (equipment becomes its equipment- variant for 1 round) (once per turn)
4 years later I’ve discovered your channel and I’m absolutely loving it. I’m so grateful to you for taking the time to share your insider perspective on game design. Even if we do disagree on gambling games and delayed resolution. 😜💙👍
Just recently found this channel. Regarding Dice for combat, World of Warcraft the board game has probably the best dice combat ever designed.
Another great video, thanks Adam! I look forward to trying your games this year and see if I enjoy them as much as your vlogs.
Thanks. I appreciate all your observations, but it is good to be aware that randomness can help achieve some worthy objectives if used well. (1) When the game is placed in an unanticipated state, players explore more of the game space and have more varied experiences. This can actually *increase* the role of skill, as skilled players will be better at taking advantage of situations they have not previously experienced or memorized. (2) In friendly/family games, it is nice if players of different skill levels feel they still have a chance of winning. If my little brother wins only 30% of the games, I still have the satisfaction of knowing I am the more skilled player, but he is encouraged by seeing that it is possible to win and that his win rate might improve. Only a very determined learner will continue to play a game after losing dozens of times in a row. (3) If the randomness doesn't produce large swings in the game, it can add some fun and variety to the experience without making it feel unfair to the skilled players who have worked hard to bring the game to a desired state.
I completely agree with your comment.
I don’t agree with much of what you said. You gave an example board game with roll to move, an event/treasure card, and roll for combat. The only alternative there would be to resolve with cards or not make the game. Since you gave a worst case scenario for dice, let me give you one with cards. Your character has a movement of 2 when enemies are adjacent. You decide to move two spaces. Then the event/treasure is triggered after your movement. This card spawns the enemy with an attack of five. The only cards in your hand will not give you enough defense to protect from that attack, or you character just naturally doesn’t have a defense stat high enough. If you would have only chose a character with better movement or defense like your other friends playing with you or could have drawn a better card... In this situation I would much rather have rolled dice. At least if I got to roll dice I would have felt that I had a chance of a good outcome rather than none at all. Just because the games behind you don’t use dice to move only proves that you don’t play games where you roll and move.
You couldn’t be more wrong when you say games with dice should only be designed by the experienced. The vast majority of people who want to design games to be published will have played and own many games. They will also be smart enough to know they will need it play tested by many people. They would use that feedback to make adjustments in the game. To think that only the experienced are smart enough to make a game with a fun and functional dice mechanic is a little arrogant. There is no better way to learn to make a game with dice mechanics, then through your own failure and feedback from ones you try and make. If one simply doesn’t try to make a game like that due to inexperience, they will never get better at doing so.
Some of the bad things that can happen in games by luck or chance don’t always mean it’s a bad game. For one thing, randomness increases replayability. Second, if you’re losing, you still feel like you have a chance. If you already know there is nothing you can physically do to win, and there is no random/luck factor, the less likely you will want to finish the game or play at your full potential. When this happens it can make others experience of the game worse. People should always feel invested in the game. When you take out randomness, you create an optimal way to play the game. Then you don’t have people exploring all facets of the game. Instead, they know that in order to compete to win they have to use certain strategies/cards/factions which can also take the fun out of the game.
These are good thoughts, and your last paragraph is especially on point. When there is no randomness in a game, then there is an optimal way to play the game, and people who play the game a lot will have this optimal way figured out. In that case, the game becomes boring because only the optimal strategy has a chance to win the game. There is no incentive to try new strategies. Now the more complex the game is, the longer it will take to figure out the optimal strategy, but eventually it will happen, and replayability will be no more. (Unless it's chess where there is literally not enough time in the world to figure out the optimal strategy).
@@cambridgehathaway3367 I think games that have a balance between luck / randomness and strategy can potentially be very engaging.
"Hero Quest was one of my favorite games as a child. But here we see that's it's very random. So it's a bad game. So please don't think about the fact that it was one of my favorite games as a child. That doesn't count. The fact that I don't like it now counts."
Heroquest was number 33 on my Top 100 games of all time. It’s a game I love. Roll and move is one mechanism - and it’s not utilised well here. But that was standard in 1989. We’ve learned so much about game design since then.
Heroquest is a product of its time, and it still has tons to offer.
I think dice rolls or random events are an excellent way of spicing up things... if they simultaneously apply to everyone around the table and not just the dice roller / card picker. It's still random, but it's not ganging on the unlucky ones
I love the tokaido style of moving.
very good video with a lot of depth analysis on game design, exactly what I am also thinking about programming my video game
Good point about event decks. I was thinking about adding that stuff to one of the games I'm designing but now I see how frustrating that mechanic can be.
You don’t actually see event decks all that often in modern published games, but I still see them cropping up in a lot of prototypes from new designers. I hope you have a few new ideas to try out! :)
Good analysis overall. I agree on most the points you make. Clear communication. A few additions even if it is 4 years late.
Hero quest also one of my childhood favourites may not be the best example here. As pointed out you can not search for treasure if monsters are present for exactly the reason to prevent being overwhelmed. Also it is inherently a cooperative game (for the heroes at least). This means that dice rolls as a group average out and you have to make strategic and tactical choices to compensate for bad luck randomness. E.g. wizard could fling a healing spell on the elf instead attacking for 1 damage. You can chose to position yourself behind a meat shield etc. Chance becomes an extra obstacle for the group to overcome, not sth that hurts the individual player.
I agree - and I really enjoy Heroquest! Nonetheless it is a bit heavy on chance by modern standards, and I don’t have many roll and move games in my collection, which is why I used it as the example. There are certainly worse examples out there!
Very thoughtful and interesting video. You gave great explanations and offered excellent insight as to exactly how randomness can frustrate a game experience. it was quite edifying. Thanks!!
Thanks! It is one of my most viewed videos and seems to split opinion :)
Great video. I'm fairly new to board game design. I'm designing a game that uses bravery checks to see if forest animals are too scared to explore certain areas. The bravery check mechanic is dice, and depending on how fearful a location, more or less dice are added. Players can alter the check by playing different cards and can choose where they go based on the equipment they have. They can also acquire re-rolls for purifying certain locations. All that said, there is some randomness in my game, but I'm hoping the other aspects that increase player agency will balance it out. Tbh, I don't see how I could completely do away with randomness in the game, specifically the core mechanic of the bravery check using a number of dice with icons based on how scary a location is. If someone has an idea how to make this type of check even less random, please do share!
I really enjoyed this video, wish I had seen it a few years ago when I was working on my first prototype and was new to everything!
Hi Adam, I stumbled upon this video and found it extremely helpful as a new designer! I would love to learn more about the differences between old game mechanics and modern mechanics. What mechanics should I avoid to prevent a game from feeling dated? And what are players and publishers looking for in modern games? Are there any videos that cover this? If not maybe this could be an idea for a future video for your channel 😋
I think that’s a really good idea for a video. I’ll give it some thought!
This is a great video look forward to watching more of these.
Sebasculin Thanks!
Very interesting, thank you!🩵
The notion that random outcomes inherently negate strategy is wrong on so many levels. If all players are subject to the same independent trials, this should advise strategy. A well-balanced use of dice and randomness makes games exciting. Games that are played without random inputs are often "solvable" or essentially prescribe "correct openings" and can dictate strategies.
Chad Patrick I agree. A well-balanced use of dice and randomness is great! I love many games like this, and I have designed games with a high degree of randomness. I’ve made many videos about dice games and light card games that I love. I’ve also sat through hundreds of hours of prototypes from first-time designers, at the weekly game design group I run, and far too often excessive randomness kills their first designs. It is frequently totally overwhelming. This was the purpose of the video - to try and persuade new designers to be more imaginative and not fall into that trap.
I am probably not so wary of randomness in game design as you, though I agree that non-random mechanics to be deep and engaging requires much more expertise. I think that the key question is balancing the degree to which random events influence the overall course of gameplay. As a keen card games player (standard deck) I enjoy randomness in these games where ultimately it's after all the player's skill that determines the final outcome, no matter how difficult or chaotic the deal turned out to be.
Very interesting and inspiring channel and great presentations, thx.
I agree with you. I’m not sure I articulated my point well in this older video. I was trying to persuade NEW designers that randomness was a dangerous element to rely on in their games. But it came across that I hated randomness. Not the case at all. I’ve just seen it overpower too many prototype games from new designers.
@@AdaminWales Yes, exactly that's the point. I don't like d&d dice roll-based mechanics either, especially when it is decisive to the point of abruptly ending the whole game in failure. I don't actually play RPG games but I suppose this kind of randomness can be balanced in a longer run, when statistics levels chaotic component so that strategic skills of a player tend to outweight influence of chaos. Similar to many brilliant card games, like say contract bridge and the like.
This video should be #1 on every board game designer's check list.
Pre-luck memoryless randomness (dice) should be avoided.
Single tiered event decks should be avoided.
FANTASTIC video, Adam!
you break things down + explain them in a brilliant way.
I completely agree with you on everything you said (us Cardiffians must have game design instinct lol!).
And this is coming from someone who loves hybrid games, with plenty of theme AND strategy AND just a slice of luck/unpredictability to prevent it from becoming just a maths problem.
For example have a look at my playtested variant for Mission Red Planet 2nd Ed on bgg:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/1680120/less-chaotic-more-strategic-mission-red-planet
Keep up the good work, can't wait for the next video in the series!
Regards, Salman
Love it! Thank you Adam : )
Great. Glad you enjoyed it!
Welcome back Adam. You've been missed!
Thanks Jeremy!
awesome hairstyle. It works very well for you.
Speaking of old games that you use roll and move and lots of other randomness, I used to play Talisman a lot back in the day. I considered it my favourite board game. There are some that reckoned that Games Workshop didn't do enough play testing of this particular game. This is apparent because one of the characters, the Prophetess, had an unfair advantage over the other characters. She was considered too powerful by some. If you were playing the Prophetess, you could draw an extra Adventure card and discard any one of those cards that she didn't want, often avoiding disaster. Some friends of mine who had Talisman actually banned the Prophetess. No one was allowed to play her. Clearly, she was too much of a good thing.
However, from a modern board game perspective, perhaps the Prophetess isn't such a problematic character after all. She has a choice when she's drawing and viewing those Adventure cards. And that's what we generally want in a modern board game - a choice. If more characters had such choices available to them or had different kinds of choices, it would likely balance things out. Food for thought.
Good point. Just giving a simple choice makes all the difference. Talisman was a world ahead of other games around when it was released - because after your dice roll you could CHOOSE to go left or right. That was immediately twice the choices available in most popular games!!
@@AdaminWales Oh yea exactly! I thought it was really innovative that you could choose to go left or right with Talisman. I felt less restrictive compared to other board games. And the different regions (outer, inner etc) were a great concept too. It wasn't too long ago when someone on an online forum said that Talisman felt like Monopoly in a fantasy skin. I don't quite agree there but I can certainly see the similarities!
Great video! 👍
You got yet another subscriber! 😊
I would say dice make Pandemic The Cure or whatever it was called with all those dice far more tense. Sadly with the card version you can "game" the outbreaks as you know whats coming ahead....dice make it far more random and dangerous which i think fits the game
I would say that taking out roll snd move spils some games. I recall Stop Thief and Restoration games took out the roll and move element which made the game silly
Part of the fun of the original version with roll and move was working out where the thief was but it being a chance youd get to them in time
For myself, Tokaido offers the most elegant way to move around a board.
You’re right, the movement in Tokaido is elegant. At first I thought it would be imbalanced. But it works really well and you always know whose turn it is.
Manilla is a weird one, you do roll and then move something.... but it doesn't feel like I could call it Rolls and Move. I think it has to be specific to an avatar because of the critical importance of positioning of an Avatar. In manilla, what the roll is actually moving are the odds of something happening. I feel its very well applied in that situation and it has non of the drawbacks I would normally cite for roll and move.
I agree - it's similar to Camel Up and Winner's Circle in that way. Very well implemented (and great game).
I think in general there are two types of gamer; those who prefer skill-based games and those who prefer luck-based games, though I don't think it's quite as simple as saying that people prefer one or the other, I think there's probably a range with people forming a normal distribution along it. I also think mood and company can be factors. I really enjoy playing chess for example, but my enjoyment of it depends on finding someone of a similar skill level to play against, it's the last game that I'd want to play if I knew that I would win or lose each match in advance. I think that's where dice games and other luck-based mechanics come into their own, they serve as a great equaliser. Though that said, they can also introduce their own form of skill via probability management.
Well, roll and move mechanics were simplified in our times. Ancient games deal with this mechanics in more ellegant and thoughtful way - vide totally dice dependant but very strategic backgammon, royal game of ur, senet etc. Ancient people just knew how to do such games.
Agreed, it's fascinating that backgammon managed to use dice as strategizable input randomness, 2000 whole years before some games of 20th and 21st century use them as sources of sorta cheap excitement
Verflixxt/That's Life does feel very backgammon-y though
how many of those kinds of games are there, though? not to mention how many centuries did it take to develop into what we know today? let's be fair, how many ancient games sucked? lol.
As always, I really enjoyed your vlog!
Thanks Juan! Always good to hear positive feedback! Disappointing day today with a big knockback from a publisher on one of my designs, so I'm pleased to hear that the video was well received! :)
Adam's Boardgame Wales Keep up! and gambatte kudasai!
Adam's Boardgame Wales Keep up! and gambatte kudasai!
Nice work, and great advice. It's easy to get lost in "things happen = fun" mentality where player agency is lost. looking forward to the next in the series.
Alex Cannon Yes! Very well put. "Things happen = fun" is exactly the misunderstanding that commonly occurs!
Seeing heroquest brought back some memories! I'd forgotten how heavy on dice it was
Great video, sums up randomisation in games design very well. I must say though, that the game is called Camel Cup.
I think not ;)
Not sure if you look at old videos @Adam in Wales but I have a question for the roll movement topic. I am currently designing a game where each character has a movement of 4 but they also add 1d6 to the movement. The board is 7x7, small and chaotic battle game with spaceships. This combines the two standard options for movement in board games that you mentioned. What do you think about that or have you seen it fail/succeed before?
D6 + 4 gives you a range of 5-10 movement. That’s quite a big range - so it will feel very random unless there are other ways to alter the dice results. But it’s likely to be less devastating that a classic D6 dice roll where a roll of 1 is FAR worse than a roll of 6.
It totally depends on the game - you’ll only find out whether it provides a good player experience by testing it. For a short duration game with a great theme, this might be fine. For a longer game with lots of strategic choices, the luck might feel out of sync with the rest of the game.
@@AdaminWales Appreciate the reply. It is a short action style game (30m). I think I am going to test Movement Speed of 5 next run with no additional dice and see how it goes.
Really great points, thanks for sharing your knowledge, Adam! I've been playing with my own designs for fun and your videos are helping me a lot with some concepts!
Great video , do you have any more of game design topics?
Skurai Ver.3 Thanks! You’ll find a bunch more on my channel :)
Wow, so many useful tips in this video. This is exactly what I was looking for! Adam, what do you think about using dice for combat, but applying different sorts of modifiers to minimize the chance of failure?
Toni Šare Dice for combat has been the default since the 1970s & I’m not sure that anyone has found a satisfactory alternative. Lots of people enjoy it very much. I don’t like combat much in games anyway (but I do really like dice games!) So basically, I think dice combat with modifiers is fine - but I would be most impressed by a designer who managed to innovate & create a new system (card-based; based around negotiation; etc.) I like the Star Wars Destiny game, which uses dice for combat with cardplay to modify dice results. But this is too convoluted a system for a bigger game. Thanks for watching! :)
Gloomhaven uses cards for combat, which I think gives enough variation on success without the game becoming miserable when I roll snake eyes four times in a row for a game that needs sixes. I’m sad that “Dice Hate Me” games got bought out because I really identified with that studio name. 😅
I didnt know there were Spikes in boardgames.
I was appalled to see that 'Earth Girls are easy' card; that's some disgusting thematic insertion into a game. 1. "Easy" 2. Illustration 3. Result
Sebasculin I find it in bad taste too. Of course, it’s a bit of a sci-fi trope: impregnated by aliens; and the title of the card is a comedy film reference. But it doesn’t come together well for the reasons you mention. Fortunately, I don’t think these weird little cards are anything more than an oddity for diehard collectors.
What are your thoughts on dice with averaged results?
For example, I've been working on a game that uses dice for combat resolution, but the standard dice are D6 with damage results [0,1,1,1,1,2]. This makes it so it adds only a small margin of randomness, as the results average out to be the number of dice rolled. So if I have a total combat strength of 5 I roll 5 dice, and am likely to get 4-6 damage, but usually 5. This makes it so your choices matter but you can never be 100% sure. There are potentially higher risk/reward dice with results [0,0,1,1,2,2] for specific purposes(heavy/slow, explosions, etc.).
Just wondering if this is still a poor inclusion of dice in your opinion.
Hi, I think that sounds like an interesting system. Clearly, the wider the range of possible outcomes, the more swingy the game becomes - rolling a D6 will have less variable results than a D20. In your version, the randomness is significantly muted. I think dice for combat (or indeed for movement or other events) is fine so long as the players have opportunities to mitigate the randomness. They could choose to spend time gathering re-roll/modifier abilities to ensure they can modify their dice rolls to achieve success; or alternatively save time by attempting a random roll with no modifiers - risking success or failure. That sort of system works well. If you are ensuring that players have some agency - and that their decisions decide the winner of the game, rather than blind luck, then you’re on the right track. (As a caveat, I do enjoy some very light, short games where luck often decides the winner - but these tend to be mass-market titles, and not very marketable or popular in the hobby space).
@@AdaminWales Thanks for the reply! I'm the kind of player who hates dice normally(Imo, Talisman's Poltergeist is a god-tier follower), but understand the need for some randomness in certain situations. Mainly I'm intending to occasionally use randomness just to bridge the skill gap ever so slightly so as to not alienate completely new players. As I think in a game that's designed for strategy AND excitement, a skilled player should win 80-90% of the time vs a lesser opponent. But imo, that other 10-20% should be there just to keep the skilled player engaged, the new player hopeful, and the games feeling close, even if the better player is expected to win. Nobody likes getting steamrolled. But of course in hard-strategy, high-skill-cap games, it's not necessarily the best approach. Suppose it just depends on the target audience.
that would be fine, imo, though personally i'd prefer custom die for ease of gameplay/quicker recognition/visual appeal. it gives the impression of quality, too.
Great advice
I love this, thanks for confirming one of my main complaints. 3 of the games I'm currently designing are diceless, only 1 has a small integration of dice due to having a pirate theme which is a common trait, but most randomness is player action and the cards addition.
Great and very useful presentation.
Just one minor criticism, you used the word “dice” throughout, which is correct for plural instances, but “die” is more traditional for a single instance.
Roll a D6 to see if you agree with him on this.
Thanks for this video! What could be good prototype exercise to build for the first time designers? I did pick up and deliver fishing game but feel bad now that I put event deck there which you draft when you cross zones. Can you tell some good mechanism/ game type to test out to get to right track?
I think events are best when they can be anticipated. For example, players reveal an event at the start of the round. They can then deal with the event to mitigate any losses or penalties, before the event actually takes effect. Basically, give the players a bit of warning rather than springing a game-changing event on them. Dominant Species does this well: it presents a selection of events - all of which will come into play at the end of the round. Players can either use acions to take control of the events (thereby losing the possibility to do other useful stuff) or ignore the events and let them happen (take the hit).
Adam, are you saying that there isn't a future for 'roll and move' board games? It seems to me that most of the games you have stored are not of that ilk or is that by choice because of the games you design?
AceBanana100 I do think there is a future for roll and move games, but it needs to evolve as a mechanism. We see interesting roll and move mechanisms in games like Formula D and Merlin.
Roll and move in it’s generic form will take a long time to disappear because many people are entirely unaware of the new breed of games - including toy and jigsaw companies who continue to produce low budget games with the mechanism. For many people, “roll and move” is synonymous with “board game”. When children design their first boardgame as a crafts project it is almost certain that it will feature “roll and move” along with action spaces like “miss a turn” or “go back 2 spaces”.
I actually think there is fun to be had with the mechanism, in the right game, and the right environment. This video is not a call to eliminate the mechanism; it is intended as a tip to new designers that there are more modern approaches they can take to make their game interesting, fun, immersive, and relevant.
I think this all boils down to mindset and mental approach to games. I like the more chaotic more luck based games so roll and move is no issue for me. I would argue that a lot of games benefit from having a brain dead mechanism in it so you can socialise during the game. Just roll dice move. No analysis paralysis. Modern games often have too much going on in them so socialising DURING the game is minimal
How will your games be called? Where can I find them?
Keindzjim The first two games are Doodle Rush and Big Bazar. They'll be released at Essen Spiel in October 2017 - and available through all the usual channels after that. Big Bazar is a worldwide edition. Doodle Rush is an English language edition. Hopefully other languages may follow.
boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/232097/big-bazar
boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/232090/doodle-rush
My other games have yet to be formally announced. You can keep an eye on my website www.adamportergames.com for the most recent news!
Yeap.. i try to avoid BG with dices.. prefer the randomness from deck of cards
Hi adam
And that's why jumangi sucks
Improve the sound quality --- I do fatigue in order to listen your voice... And what you then are saying...
10005999 Rewatching the video &
not hearing the problem. Can you clarify? Is it too quiet? Too loud? Too grainy? Too much background noise? Or just my annoying voice?
I listen a low level voice...
Maybe are my earphones that doesnt work... Who knows... But it seems the sound of the video has to be corrected...
10005999 Thanks for the feedback. I’m working with an iPhone so not too many options for improving the sound but maybe I’ll invest in some new equipment at some point! (I tried before & it was a disaster!) :)
Sounded perfectly clear to me.
Dice are terrible. Always have been. /rant
Cards, or the players themselves are no less random.
Yahtzee and every other game based on it says otherwise