# Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

18 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

A couple of ideas collided while I was in the shower and produced what I think would be an interesting game, or at least the core of one. Before I fancy it up, though, I want to make sure I'm not putting jewelry on a pig. That's why I decided to run it past you folks.

The theme is battling monsters, similar to Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh. It's played with special dice, which have three sides one color, two a second, and one a third (though for playtesting I can use a mat that assigns the numbers to colors). There are four colors from which a die can choose its three, giving a total of 24 battle monsters. Each player has four identical dice representing his monster. (Monster choice comes in at a higher level than I'm currently considering, but obviously some will be stronger against others in a complex rock-paper-scissors relationship; there's also the possibility of teams, tournament structure, and the like.)

To play, the two players decide who will go first however they like, then both roll all their dice. The attacker picks some number of his dice that show the same color; that color (say, blue) and the number of dice (say, two) are his attack. (He need not choose all the dice of that color if he wishes.) The defender then picks some number of his dice that are the same color. He need not (and in some cases may not) choose any dice, and he may not choose more dice than the attacker did. The defender's monster takes damage according to the difference in the number of dice chosen (three attacking versus one defending means two 'damage points'), all the dice chosen are re-rolled, and the players switch roles. Play continues until one monster takes a certain amount of damage, at which point it is defeated.

My question is, would this be an interesting game to play? I'm trying to set up a program to analyze the effectiveness of different strategies (always do as much damage as you can and prevent as much as you can; save up for an attack of four dice in your most common color; save dice in your attacker's most common color to use as defense...), to make sure there's no One Great Strategy (making the game uninteresting to play), but it's taking me a while. Maybe someone else has already done some work in that field and can share his results. More to the point, does anyone besides me think this would be fun to play? Would you add other elements to the basic battling, or alter any of the core concepts? At the moment, I'm still in the 'brainstorm' stage, so anything you can toss out helps.

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

At its core I think you have a great idea, but like you say it is only the framework. What I'm concerned about is if this game has any deep strategy at all. Numbers are fairly uninteresting - have you considered adding special powers to certain dice? As in, Loki=reroll a dice that you or your opponent controls, Champion=x2 attack for the fighting group you include him in, Chameleon=weak, but omni-color so you can put him anywhere, etc.

I don't understand combat very well. Are the dice individual monsters? The groups of the same color? Or are all the dice you throw one big monster? The reason it is important is I can't figure out how damage is assigned and how it matters. When a monster dies, do you lose a single die, or a whole group? I can't help but think of the dice as individuals in a group, so when one team is defeated (the opponent's team did more damage) maybe the defeated group gets "knocked out" for a number of turns. Simple elimination matches are easiest to understand and keep track of - there's no need for counters to track damage.

DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Interesting Idea

I am not totally clear of how a battle is conducted.

In principle I think you have a viable idea. Maybe you can give us an example of two "monstors" fighting.

I like Deviant's idea of even having special symbols or something on the die for special monstor attacks.

My best advice, is try it out! Go ahead and play it with other people to see if it works. If you play it and is dead boring, and appears that there is no hope of improving it, you can toss the idea out.

-DarkDream

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

Your game sounds somewhat similar to mine, I also use dice to represent creatures in a army.

I think something that makes these games fun is some sort of variety in possible stratagies. If monsters are only destingushed by their strength, I faill to see how this can arise.

Devient suggested what I was going to suggest. Add special abilities to certain units, or add an extra element to the game.

So far your design sounds pretty solid though.

stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

FredMSloniker wrote:
The attacker picks some number of his dice that show the same color; that color (say, blue) and the number of dice (say, two) are his attack. (He need not choose all the dice of that color if he wishes.) The defender then picks some number of his dice that are the same color. He need not (and in some cases may not) choose any dice, and he may not choose more dice than the attacker did. The defender's monster takes damage according to the difference in the number of dice chosen (three attacking versus one defending means two 'damage points'), all the dice chosen are re-rolled, and the players switch roles. Play continues until one monster takes a certain amount of damage, at which point it is defeated.

I like the general idea behind this game, but this part needs revision I think.
There appears to be no point in actually rolling the dice if the defender is absolutly going to suffer the damage = to the difference of the dice amount chosen by both players.
It might work if the amount of dice rolled determined the amount of damage received if the defender lost the battle, which could be determined by the "power ratings" total sum of the players dice. The player with the higher "power rating" sum wins. This would make the faces of the dice have a value.
To prevent any player from throwing as many dice as possible, there could be a "dice pool" for each monster that will only refresh after a determined amount of time if the monster survives to that round or what have you.
This "dice pool" would provide the amount of dice available for defense, and a seperate pool for offence. In fact special pools could be created for certain monsters for their special dice/moves.
Some monsters could have more defense dice in their defense pool and equally others more dice in their attack pool, and even those who are balanced more.
There's also the concept of monters linking attacks together.
This would take some extra work but it would add another element to the decisive strategy of the game perhaps.
But again...a good basic and sound idea that you have going.

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

:o SMACKS HEAD AGAINST WALL :o

Reading over stump's post, I realize now that I almost completely misunderstood the game. The dice have colored faces, but no attack values? That is, no numbers at all? This simplifies the game considerably - a drawback, given how simple it is already. I can not think of a single effective strategy, aside from rolling the dice and praying they come out in the right colors.

From the rules, I can't see how one monster could be different than another in strength. And yet you say that they should be "in a complex rock-paper-scissors relationship". Rock-paper-scissors is a game where each element dominates one other and is dominated by the third. It is a game of psychology - the player who can anticipate his opponent has the edge. The closest this game would come to RPS is if each element (there would have to be 3 or 5, 4 doesn't balance) in some way dominates the others. So, to draw from Pokemon, "fire beats grass" and so two fire dice defeat 2 or less grass dice. If every monster has a different mix of 3 elements, then some monsters ARE better than others (a fire specialist beats a grass specialist). Now you've solved one problem, but the game still lacks decision-making, a crucial component of any game. If players are able to reinforce with another monster, rescue a monster near-death with some penalty, combine monsters (and powers) and/or effectively control the match-ups they go against, then we start to see some strategy emerge. Right now it's a luck-fest.

The game is too balanced. I'm not saying that the monsters shouldn't be balanced against each other, but they should be balanced in different ways. One always wins ties, another heals damage, a third instantly kills all other monsters if it gets 4 reds, etc.

Interestingly, the closest game this idea resembles is yahtzee (spelling?). That game has some good strategy in playing the odds and making difficult choices which box to fill (full house or three of a kind? Think!). The downside: it is also essentially multiplayer solitaire. For what it's worth, I think you should take a look at that game for inspiration. Like, I dunno, different color combinations represent different attacks, ie: 3 reds=flame tail, all colors=elemental shield... but once you've played an attack those dice leave play until the end of the battle. Um, I think I've already twisted your game beyond all recognition. :? Sorry! I hope at least some of it was useful!

Anonymous
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

Deviant: All four dice are one big monster. Damage doesn't affect the dice, but is instead tracked on a counter. I'm inspired in this by the Japanese pokemon battle dice game, which uses zap dice-- I don't know what FOR, as I don't read Japanese, but it appears to involve not only rolling the dice, but rolling a pokemon-shaped cube (cube-shaped pokemon?) and consulting a chart to determine what attacks you can perform.

As for strategies, they consist, at the moment, of things like 'always do as much damage as you can', 'save dice in your opponent's best color for defense', 'roll dice that aren't your best color until you can make a four-point attack', 'attack against your opponent's best showing color to convince him to roll them and break up the group', and the like.

How one monster is stronger than another? That's in the colors. A monster whose dice are RRRGGB will have a distinct advantage over one whose dice are GGGBBY; it has some defense against all of the latter monster's attacks (except the yellow one, which will tend to be weak), while having a strong attack (in red) that can't be blocked. On the other hand, RRRGGB and RRRGGY will be a very even fight, while RRRGGB and YYYBBG will lead to a mutual pummel-fest as neither can defend well against the other's best attacks.

DarkDream: A simple example is this. I have a monster with RRRGGB on its dice; my opponent has YYYBBG. We flip a coin and I get first turn, so we roll our dice. I get three reds and a green; he gets a yellow and three blues (an odd result for him). I want to hit him hard, so I choose my reds; he doesn't have any reds to block with, so he takes three points of damage. I also reroll my red dice, getting a red, a green, and a blue (in addition to the green I already had). He doesn't roll any dice, but it's now his turn. I couldn't block the yellow, but he decides to use all three of his blues; I have one blue I can block with, so I do. I take two points of damage and reroll my blue, getting another blue; he, on the other hand, gets a yellow and two greens (lucky!). Now I have a red, two greens, and a blue, while he has two yellows and two greens. It isn't looking good for me; I can do, at most, one point of damage to him next round, and he can do two unblockable points of damage back...

stumps: The point of rerolling the dice is that you're probably not going to get the same colors you had before, so you can't just make the same strong attack again and again. (You can also choose to make weak attacks to reroll dice not in your best color until all your dice match, or not make a defense in order to save dice you plan to use in a big attack next turn.)

All: I've considered having special symbols on the dice. The Japanese game does this, having some dice with multiple symbols on a side (in my version, that'd be a side with two colors, or even one that counts double). Since that appears to be a popular suggestion, though, I'll consider it. (Maybe a symbol that can only be used for defense, but is a wild card in that respect, making a monster a strong defender... or contrariwise for a strong but somewhat fragile monster. Any other suggestions?)

IngredientX
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

Now that I understand the concept, it strikes me as a very sound idea. I'm not sure if it's enough to build a game around - perhaps more of a mechanic incorporated in a larger game - but I've been wrong before. :)

You may want to check out Cheapass Games' Button Men and Diceland to see how similar games were marketed. Button Men has about your game's level of complexity - perhaps a little more complex, but not by much - but was released with a "collectible" spin and seemed to do quite well, by the standards of an independent company.

Diceland is a little more complicated, as it is more of a standalone game.

Best of luck with your idea!

stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

Ah...now that I understand that the colors themselves determine the effect of the "power" and the referance to "rock/paper" concept, things are starting to make sense.

One thing seams to be apparent to me now though.
as you listed some examples of combinations earlier...
"GGGBBY,
RRRGGB,
RRRGGY"
...I could see that I would very simply make a flow chart that revealed every possible combination and then study them to decide what the overall best setup would be.
example...
lets use some basic colors that you used above.
Red(R), Green(G), Blue(B), Yellow(Y)

Now, your examples provided color codes that resulted in 6 color variable codes: XXXXXX
We'll do the same here.
This gives us 4 colors, with a resulting six digit color code that I'm not all together sure how you get considering the above where you stated that there are four dice per player, four colors (from which the die chooses it's three...this is very unclear how the die chooses three out of four colors by the way) at a distribution rate of: 3 sides on one color, 2 sides one color, and 1 side a final color.
I can only comprehend a possibility of a four digit color code: "XXXX"
So I'll go with that untill it is made clearer to me how this all works out.

Also, there is the part where you say four identical dice.
If the dice are dicected into three color categories and all four dice are the same, how do you get the fourth color?

For test purposes, I'm going to just say that there are multiple dice to choose from for different monsters that favor one color over the other two on the dice, and that the player uses the appropriate four dice that corilate to their monsters color "make-up"...meaning they go with the dice that favor the 3 sides of the color that their monster is.

This comes out something like this:

R G B Y
R X O O X
G O X X O
B O X X O
Y X O O X
R G B Y

O = 3 color code junction area
X = non possibles

this produces this outcome:

321
RGY
GRB
BRG
YGR
RGB
GRY
BRY
YGB
RBY
GYB
BYG
YBR

In all there are 13 possible combinations.
The 3 = 3 sides of dice, 2, 2 sides of dice, and 1 one side of dice.

CRAP! times up..at the library....damn...I'll finish this up later....but you can atleast start to see where this is going.

stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

ok...now to finish...

the above chart gave us our possible color-to-dice possibilities, now let's just take one of those possibilities so I can show you what I'm talking about with charting out the game play before it even happens.
We'll use the first Color Code combination:
321
RGY

This gives us RRRGGY as our possibles on one die.
Since a player is going to be using 4 dice we'll need to make our charts with four sides to it.
We'll also need to make 3 charts to find the complete amount of possiblities. 3 charts are needed because you have to re-arange the order of the RRRGGY on the chart three times to get all the possibilities.

First, the charts:

CHART #1
R R R G G Y
R rrrr rrrr rrrr rrgg rrgg rryy R
R rrrr rrrr rrrr rrgg rrgg rryy R
R rrrr rrrr rrrr rrgg rrgg rryy R
G rrgg rrgg rrgg gggg gggg ggyy G
G rrgg rrgg rrgg gggg gggg ggyy G
Y rryy rryy rryy ggyy ggyy yyyy Y
R R R G G Y

CHART #2
R R R G G Y
R rrry rrry rrry rggy rggy ryyy Y
R rrrg rrrg rrrg rggg rggg rgyy G
R rrrg rrrg rrrg rggg rggg rgyy G
G rrrg rrrg rrrg rggg rggg rgyy R
G rrrg rrrg rrrg rggg rggg rgyy R
Y rrry rrry rrry rggy rggy ryyy R
R R R G G Y

CHART #3
R R R G G Y
R rryy rrgy rrgy rrgy rrgy rryy Y
R rrgy rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgy G
R rrgy rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgy G
G rrgy rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgy R
G rrgy rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgg rrgy R
Y rryy rrgy rrgy rrgy rrgy rryy R
Y G G R R R

ALL LISTINGS THAT ARE IN NORMAL BLACK FONT ARE COMBINATIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN VOID DUE TO THEIR EXISTANCE IN ANOTHER CHART.
(all combinations only need to exist in one chart...chart three was needed to produce new combinations however, even though it also produced repetitive combinations...therefor, those repeated combinations are not counted)

Possibilities listed by Chart #1: 36
Possibilities listed by Chart #2: 36
Possibilities listed by Chart #3: 16
TOTAL POSSIBILITIES for 4 RGY dice: 88

Possibilities listed by number of times appeared (from greatest to least)
RRGY: 16
RRRG: 12
RRGG: 12
RRRR: 9
RGGG: 8
RRRY: 6
RRYY: 6
RGGY: 4
GGGG: 4
RGYY: 4
RYYY: 4
GGYY: 2
YYYY: 1

Possibilities listed by % chance of appearance in one roll(from greatest to least...percentages are rounded off)
RRGY: 18.1%
RRRG: 13.6%
RRGG: 13.6%
RRRR: 10.2%
RGGG: 9%
RRRY: 6.8%
RRYY: 6.8%
RGGY: 4.5%
GGGG: 4.5%
RGYY: 4.5%
RYYY: 4.5%
GGYY: 2.2%
YYYY: 1.1%

You can do this with every color combination that was listed above in my previous post where we chose to Test out the charting of
321
RGY

After you have those charts and percentages it simply becomes a matter of deciding which dice you would like to use per what result you wish to have a better chance at.

I did have a point to all of this.
I still think that there needs to be another "outside" variable so that this kind of charting isn't so easy....I mean...I did this in a matter a two hours...on paper! No program....if a program was created it would be worse.

Just a thought.

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

That's what I meant when I said the game was too balanced. Don't get me wrong, balance is important in games. But in a game like this there is always a best choice, and what's more it is mathematically predictable. Any fool with Stump's charts (very nice job, btw) could select the best option and play optimally well. Gambling games like poker are also ruled by probability, but mechanisms built into the game make it difficult to judge the best action. For instance, there is the bluffing element, the concealed hands, and the near limitless possible card combinations that make charting every situation impossible.

I understand that this game is only the core of a much larger game. Whatever the main game will become, it must be made to control the match-ups, so that the defender does not always have the option to make the "best choice". For example, if the monsters are moving around on a map, the best choice to fight monster x, monster y, could be on the other end of the map. So you'll have to settle for monsters w and z.

stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

After posting the charts, I instantly started seeking idea after idea to fix the glitch. I continued to work on it, in fact, all day and into the night.
I presented the situation to everyone who happened to be hanging aroundme until one of my friends actually took intrest in solving the equation.
We worked amazingly fast for about 2 to 3 hours talking about the issue and revising the equation piece at a time.
This was our final outcome that I now present to you humbly as an option for you to choose to use and others to comment on.

ISSUE #1
The very first thing that had to be fixed was replacing the element of human psychology, that exists when playing paper-rock-scissors, but had been removed from the battle dice game due to it's "paper, rock, and scissors" (so to speak) existing on dice. This means that you can automatically calculate the chances of "rocks" or "papers". This, as shown above, isn't very good for the game play.

SOLUTION
The simple solution comes in a two-fold answer.
1) remove the cap limit of players only rolling four dice and let them choose how many dice they roll.
2) Each player has a shield that hides their dice from their opponent (similar to scrabble) which alows the players to choose how many dice they will roll without letting their opponent know, as well as make "false" movements to try and trick their opponent into thinking that they are going to be using a different amount of dice than they really are.

OUTCOME
The result of this element is that the game now adds a game mechanic that is used in poker and gambling games. Bluffing. This very element will make the game nearly impossible to chart out with an equation, as the best randomizer known to games is the players.

<<<>>>

ISSUE #2
If we let the players roll as many dice as they choose, instead of a fixed number of four, we need a way to make it a strategic challenge for the players to make that choice of dice amount.

SOLUTION
We give each monster a Dicepool that only "refreshes" after a defined amount of time. This Dicepool is the stockpile for both the monsters attack dice and defense dice. The player is free to choose how many dice they wish to draw from that dicepool for this roll, but they have to keep in mind that the monster now only has "X" amount of dice left to defend itself and conduct other attacks and defenses until the "refresh" time.
*refresh: the point at which the dicepool returns to it's full level.

THIS IS A NOTE NOT A QUOTE wrote:
Refer to ISSUE #7 for the refresh rule.

OUTCOME
The dicepool adds two immidiate elements:
1) The dicepool regulates the players maximum of dice throwing for a given monster and thus balances the game by forcing the player to relize the consequences of their actions regarding dice amount to be thrown.
2) The dicepool adds a level of description to the monster who was previously void of character on any level other than color association. A monster, at this point, with a higher dicepool is stronger than a monster with a lower dicepool. (so far...but it's not that simple later)

<<<>>>

ISSUE #3
The designation for each monster of what type of dice they roll is, as of yet, not created. This leaves for all blue monsters to roll with dice that have 3 blue on it, red monsters to roll with dice that have 3 red on it, and so forth. While this may not be an issue in itself, it is an issue of diversity.

SOLUTION
Monsters have two colors and two stats.
The first color difines what the monsters attack color is, while the second color defines the monsters defence color.
The first stat defines what type of dice the monster uses when attacking, and the second stat defines what type of dice the monster will use when defending.

THIS IS A NOTE NOT A QUOTE wrote:
By type, we are refering to that list of 13 possible dice listed above that look like:
321
RGY
I would suggest for the sake of ease that it become a uniformed rule that when you see a color code of "XXX", that the first color is 3 sides of the die, the second color is 2 sides of the die, and the last color is 1 side of the die.

OUTCOME
This element allows us to make monsters who are strong attackers, but weak defenders; weak attackers, but strong defenders; average attackers and defenders; and lesser monsters who are generally weak on both. (but perhaps these weak little monsters have a big dicepool...see how it starts to work?) Making a monster have a red attack and use the type of die RGY means that the monster would have good strong attacks by using a die with 3 sides red, while to balance this monster out we make the monster have a green defense using the same type of die (RGY) it will be a moderate defender as it will produce it's successes of defense using a die with only 2 sides green.
Weak attackers would be like a yellow attacker using the die type RGY as the yellow on that die only appears once.

<<<>>>

ISSUE #4
As of yet, no monster has a defined amount of life, or hit-points. In a game where you are attacking and defending with monsters. This is nearly a must have to most games.

SOLUTION
Add a hitpoints stat and scale.

OUTCOME
The hitpoints would allow for us to determine how long we want a specific monster to last in the game. Big strong attackers may not be too appropriate to leave in the game for ever, while smaller weaker monsters may need to last a while to even do any effective damage.

<<<>>>

ISSUE #5
With all of the monsters that need to exist for diversity, there needs to be a medium upon which their stats may exist.

SOLUTION
Make cards that hold the monsters stats and info on them. (Yes I know we all instantly think of Magic, the Gathering, but I don't think it will play out that way at all.)

OUTCOME
This allows us to create monsters and provide them to the players endlessly upon our regulation. This would also allow players to choose their monsters per what style of monsters they liked or preffered.
And of course it needs be said...sales. You'de simply make more money by adding cards that players buy continuously than by making a straight dice game that the players buy once for two people.

<<<>>>

ISSUE #6
If we use cards, then there needs to be a regulation on how many "monster cards" a player may use.

SOLUTION
Power points.
Power wha?
Power points. Power points are a stat that each monster has which is a mathematical resulting digit that represents the monsters overall power.
Similar to sports video games that have an overall rating for the player which represents a sum up of all their stats.
The player will only be allowed to have something like 60 to 100 (not real sure yet) power points in their monster deck.

OUTCOME
This lets us regulate and balance the weak monsters and big monsters by asigning smaller or larger power points which in turn will take up more or less of the players monster deck power point limit.

<<<>>>

ISSUE #7
Game play is not defined past a "you go, I go, you go, I go" status.
This presents a bit of a slip up when factoring in dicepools that need a refresh point.

SOLUTION
The game would need some sort of order...perhaps similar to this:

• WAR: The entire game completed only when one player defeats the other.
• BATTLE: The point at which one or both players have extinguished their monster decks.
• MATCH: 3 Turns
• TURN: Two bouts
• BOUT: The action of one player acting as an attacker and the other player acting as the defender. (After the first bout, a second bout is held reversing the rolls of the players. This = 1 Turn)
THIS IS A NOTE NOT A QUOTE wrote:
The Dicepool of any monster in play refreshes after one match.

OUTCOME
An organized rotation of play that incorperates all aspects of the games variables.

<<<>>>

ISSUE #8
From ISSUE #7 you read that after a Battle the players decks have all been used. Wether they were killed, survived, or "spent" (which is to say that the player has removed the monster from the battle to save them for the next battle.)
This brings into need a way to pick up the cards back into the decks and start the next battle of the war.

SOLUTION
Resource points.
Each player has a counter that starts at 100.
This counter represents the players resources in weapons, magic, food, gold, etc...
When the player chooses to introduce a monster into the battle, they must spend the listed amount of resources for the monster.
After a battle, their resources will not refresh.
They must now remake their monster deck by adding and removing any cards that they wish, except those in the dead pile (monsters who were defeated/killed), up to their resource point limit.

OUTCOME
This enables players to change strategies between battles if they aren't going so well, or if they just have a plan that involves switching out monsters.
===============================================
===============================================

Ok, that's all the revisions that we came up with last night, but here's a look at the basic layout we threw together for the cards.

__________________________
|PP:3 RP:2 [G] [R] RGY/GRB|
| ________________________ |
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
||________________________||
| |
| Dice Pool: 24 |
| Hitpoints: 9 |
| |
| |
|__________________________|

PP: Power Points
Having a deck with only this type of monster in it would allow you to have nearly 40 monsters in your monster deck.

RP: Resource Points
This monsters Resource requirement is low which makes it great for the reforming of the monster deck after a battle as well as not taxing to many resource points to be placed into action in the battle.

["X"]: Designated the color to be used for attacks and defense. Attack is listed first on the left, and then defense. This monster would be Attack: Green, and Defense: Red. This means that this is a moderate monster because they are trying to produce successfull rolls of the appropriate color needed (Green or Red) with only two sides of the die.

This monsters Dicepool would last exactly 3 turns (one match) rolling four dice per roll of attack and defense.

This monsters hitpoints don't leave them in the game very long
===============================================
===============================================
Ok...for now, that is all I have.
There is so much more that could be written about all this in a rule book form, and there is much that probably needs to be discussed and tinkered with, but that is my full on effort twords Battle Dice Monsters.
I hope it helps.

[/]
stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

So....not to push this with a re-post, but I was just wondering if there were any thoughts on all of what I just posted...it was alot of work and even a, "This sucks" would be appreciated. As of now, I'm thinking that I confused the hell out of people or something due to the lack of response.

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

I think that you are eager to make this game just like Fred. I think your ideas are very interesting.

I am just wondering if this will compete with the game I am designing.

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

It's hard to reply to such a large post! I feel like I need to know everything to begin with before I even start to comment. Already I've misunderstood this game once.

To start with, I like the idea of a "dice pool". This adds a small bluffing element to the game. It may not be much, but it helps. The best place I can think of to "refresh" the pools is when two monsters that have faced off have BOTH exhausted their pools. In this way, you could play conservatively, using only a few dice each turn for defense and holding something in reserve for when your opponent runs out of dice. I presume the dice pool will be tracked with counters and not with dice?

Even with the changes, though, it's mostly a crapshoot. Rock-Paper-Scissors has this too, I guess, with at least the appearance of meaningful decisions (ie: can you really predict an opponent's next action when he/she is trying to second-guess you?) I guess the real strategy of this game comes from the monster cards and setting up matchups, and not so much from the battles themselves.

It's a good start. I guess the real question is: does anything emerge spontaneously from the battles that makes them interesting? In Magic, you never know what cards will come up next and how they will affect play. In Settlers, a dash of randomness added to long-term planning may result in each player developing a remarkably different "society". Perhaps it would spice up play if certain combinations of colors (ie 3 blue) allowed monsters to use special attacks instead of or in addition to regular attack/defense. Or something. If the battles never move beyond "Take that! No, take that!", then you'll have to rethink how this game is played.

Anonymous
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

You may want to look at a several year old Milton Bradley dice game based on the televised homebrew robot competitions. BattleBots Kickbot Arena uses combinations of colored die to resolve battle. Each bot is defined by the combination of die used to represent it in battle. (One unique twist on this game is that dice resolve differently when they land on certain portions of the game board when rolled, those falling through trap doors becoming out of play.)

This comparison may be over simplifying your concept as I have not followed the chain of replies in detail.

stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

well, it's good to here that the general concept is sounding decent to a few people...
I'm still rather curious about FredMSloniker's thoughts...have you abandoned this game?

stumps
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Battling dice: an interesting game at its core?

:( Huh. Well, criticism aside, I thought the idea was interesting.

The concept of specialized dice (more of one value than another, and some not at all) struck me as particularly clever. I wonder if any games have dice with this effect? I have been considering a game which has the same 3-2-1 dice as Fred suggested, but this idea involves loads of dice, and it would be logistically almost impossible to print and apply stickers to so many blank dice. So if anyone knows if something similar is already on the market, I'd appreciate it.