# How many dice are too many dice?

29 replies [Last post]
silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013

Currently playing with an idea that involves dice.

The dice are pulled from a bag by four players, rolled, and then placed face up on the table in a certain order. Then four players pull more dice out of the bag, roll, and place those dice face up on the table creating strings of dice that accumulate points. This goes on for several rounds or until a specific condition is met and then the game ends.

I calculated that 100-200 dice would be used in the game but that sounds way out of control. I don't even think that many dice could fit at the table. I am not familiar with dice collecting games or games that use a massive amount of dice.

Can anyone comment on how many dice are too many dice? Is cost a factor (I found 100 dice for 11 bucks) or would that many dice at a table be unmanaegable or a huge turn off?

Can anyone recommend me a game or two that use lots of dice akin to what I am proposing?

Itsdan
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2013
It sounds like the game has a

It sounds like the game has a lot of dice merely for the sake of having a lot of dice. Is there any benefit to having them form a string of dice like that, or could points be accumulated on some kind of score tracker?

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
No.

"could points be accumulated on some kind of score tracker?"

No. The stringing together of dice plays an integral part in a mechanic of the game. At the end of each round those string of dice will be scored. During each round, the value of those dice will change based on certain variables.

It sounds like 100+ dice is too much dice.

Dralius
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
[quote=silasmolinoI

And I thought my game with 35D6 was pushing it a bit.

Your game is what they call unpublishable because the shear cost of the dice alone would make the game retail for \$70+ then you have all the other production expenses so it would be even more.

Once the dice are placed do the values ever change?

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
Yes

"Once the dice are placed do the values ever change?"

Yes.

NOTE: These are custom dice.

There are three faces which, when rolled, can be placed next to the chain and change that chain's value for that round.

Thanks Dralius for the heads up. This game is not a \$70.00 idea.

I had though about the cost but figured if a box of dominos only cost's a couple bucks, then surely a box of dice must be comparable.

Back to the drawing board.
Perhaps I can scratch the dice altogether and use chit-pull system and get the same results. But the satisfaction that comes from rolling dice wont be there.

Or perhaps you roll dice, and the face on the dice will reflect the face of a token (hex, square or otherwise) and you pick up that square and use it (but it decreases the elegance of the game by adding another step).

I need to post this in the design theory section.

Itsdan
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2013
Retail pricing is usually 4

Retail pricing is usually 4 or 5 times production costs, that's something to keep in mind, and if making custom dice you'll need a lot to make them cost effective. At 100 dice per unit I suppose that isn't too many units before you have a pretty large dice order, but still.

I think having the dice grant you chits could work fairly well.

Afterthought: depending on material 100 dice in a box could impact shipping costs too.

tienzee
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2013
Howdy, 100-200 dice sounds

Howdy, 100-200 dice sounds like a lot, weight and size wise it would be fair substantial for shipping, however I am personally a huge fan of dice games... Base game for Quarrirors comes with 130 dice if I am not mistaken... And I just kick started a game called Dungeon Dice and it should carry a similar amount of dice... I would look up those games and go from there.

I think 100 dice shouldn't be a huge issue personally, who doesn't love throwing excessive amounts of dice.

2LTGamer
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2013
I think as long as the rules

I think as long as the rules are simple, and the Dice are all the same kind i.e. D6, you should be just fine with 100-200 dice. Anything over 150+ you need to review the rules to ensure that it is not too complex or too tedious.

dobnarr
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Tienzee - I had a game, a

Tienzee - I had a game, a big-market game by Parker Brothers, I think, called Dungeon Dice as a kid. Very fun. I'm fairly sure the name would not be trademarked anymore, but you might run into confusion. Picture here, BGG link here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1555/dungeon-dice

Shoe
Offline
Joined: 12/21/2012
Your game sounds a lot like

Your game sounds a lot like Qwerkle Cubes, but with numbers. I think you can probably manage with less dice than 100+

lewpuls
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
How many dice

May have posted it here as well.

100-200 strikes me as unnecessarily excessive. There ought to be ways to reduce that.

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
Thanks

I've finalizing the first prototype and the first draft of rules are complete.

Here are the numbers: 28 dice.: 7 dice for each player. 4 players.

Each player will get 6 custom die and 1 plain six sided die.

Players will roll the 6 custom die each round. Depending on the face of their die, they will pick up (purchase) the corresponding token (image on a tile) and play (build) it on the board.

Instead of 200 die there will be 100 tokens (i don't know how the math works, but it does).

I have playtested this method several times and it appears that elegance in the design remains. It's cost effecient and it adds an extra phase that adds to the theme of the game.

Success!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Dice sharing

silasmolino wrote:
Here are the numbers: 28 dice.: 7 dice for each player. 4 players.

Each player will get 6 custom die and 1 plain six sided die.

Why not SHARE the dice between players, that would reduce the number of dice to 7... Or is that not possible...???

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
Game time

It would increase game time significantly. As of now all six phases are played simultaneously. The 15-30 minute aspect is key. Prolonging it may not make the game worth playing.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

silasmolino wrote:
It would increase game time significantly.

I was wondering why *game time* is such a concern? If the game is FUN, player's won't be concerned if the game takes 15-30 minutes or 45-60 minutes??? Are you designing this game for a competition with time restriction?

silasmolino wrote:
As of now all six phases are played simultaneously. The 15-30 minute aspect is key. Prolonging it may not make the game worth playing.

I don't see how taking a little bit more time *can make a game not worth playing*. Also playing CONCURRENT players could be confusing... When too many things are going on, that can lead to confusion.

Dice typically cost \$0.15 each at The Game Crafter (pretty cheap). BUT you are using custom dice... Therefore you would have to buy the ones with stickers. So 27 custom dice would be more costly (\$10.80 + \$1.30 = \$12.10). That would be your cheapest option (with stickers). Custom dice like Chessex would be too costly.

BUT I still am doubtful that taking turns rolling dice would not make the game worth playing...

Why are you so concerned with game play time? It's not like your game takes 90 or 120 minutes to play...

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
Small filler

The game is designed to be a small filler. Perhaps this is a new discussion for the Game Design Theory thread but It is in my opinion that if simultaneously play can replace turns, then replace it. It speeds up game time and down time (no one is waiting for anyone to "hurry up") and retains elegance.

Price is not a concern right now either so cost for dice is irrelevant. I can print my own stickers on some Avery sheets and stick them to some standard die for prototyping.

After reading through this discussion and doing some research on some afformentioned games, it appears that game time is less a factor than quality fun time. If I can pack equal amounts of fun into 15-30 minutes as I could into 45-60 minutes, then lets make it 15-30 minutes.

There is also the matter of elegance. Rolling die simultaneously is more elegant than rolling die, taking action, and passing it to the left. This is of course my opinion.

Any thoughts?

tienzee
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2013

Agreed, rolling your own dice has a certain - elegance, as described. I am however, the guy who brings his own dice pack to game nights so I have my own to roll :p

tienzee
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2013
That looks like a pretty cool

That looks like a pretty cool game too, I love the premise! Here is the kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/293287047/dungeon-dice-relaunch-coll... I wonder if the creator knows about the 1977 game sharing the name.

nostalgiant
Offline
Joined: 06/01/2013
I am running into the same

I am running into the same problem. My game is similar to quarriors in that it is a dice building game but unique in its mechanisms and game play. The issue...a lot of dice, 60 are custom d6,d8,d10 and d12s plus 102 regular d6s,d8s,d10s and d12s.

I COULD reduce the number of regular dice but those core resource dice need to have enough to support 3-4 players.

http://nostalgiantgames.com/docs/SS_Rules.pdf

eviljohs
Offline
Joined: 03/10/2012
I would recommend as many

I would recommend as many dice easily fit in one hand.

ckleach
Offline
Joined: 02/26/2013

Eleventeen! :P

kodokijo
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2013
I like dice....

I like rolling a handful of dice in an attack process. It was like... shake shake shake... take that! I almost don't feel sad when the result was not too good (or sometimes all flop), maybe I love the dice gods who doesn't love me back.

But, a 100+ dice? At certain point the players going to forget that they are playing your game because all they do is roll a handful after a handful of dice (unless you shake them with a trash can or something), and then they have to sort out which dice value took effect, one by one! (An image of people working in a dice factory doing quality control pops in my head).

Well, this is only my opinion...
A hundred is too much man.

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
Over due Update

This is a long overdue update to this thread.

I scrapped the incredibly large amount of dice and opted for tiles that will be used once you roll the dice. Here is how it works:

Roll 6 dice. Select 3 dice. Purchase 3 tiles which are associated with your 3 dice. buid your tracks.

Instead of hundreds of dice there are only 24, 6 for each player.

rules can be found here: http://rollingwestward.weebly.com/rules.html

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
24 still sounds like a lot!

I don't know - but 24 dice still seems like a lot. You said "Roll 6 dice." Why can't you share the 6 dice (and only have 6 dice)? Then continue with selecting and purchasing 3 tiles associated with your 3 dice. I don't see why you wouldn't want to take TURNS. If you are building tracks, shouldn't the process be sequential not parallel?

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
time

The game plays faster and no one is sitting there watching. The 6 dice gives the player options, so it's not pure luck.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Missing strategy!

silasmolino wrote:
The game plays faster and no one is sitting there watching. The 6 dice gives the player options, so it's not pure luck.

Okay I managed to read your game rules and follow the two rounds of play. I agree having 6 dice and selecting 3 is good for your game.

BUT you say the game plays faster if everybody has their own dice. Here is thing, it does not give players a chance to REACT to an opponent ON THAT TURN. What I mean by this is IF a player chooses a *bandit*, an opponent could react by hiring a *Sheriff* ON THE SAME TURN rather than having to wait until the NEXT TURN (or ROUND in your terms). I think there is game play which you neglect by having all players roll at the same time.

First of all, IF I WAS PLAYING... I would wait until everyone else rolled and choose their tiles. Because being the LAST player to choose GIVES A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE. This is something you are not considering. If things are happening PARALLEL, I would simply always be the LAST PLAYER so I can see what dice I would select (to match with the right tiles)...

Therefore I think it is WRONG assumption that you are making by saying "the game plays faster". There is strategy in playing *a turn* and WATCHING what your opponent chooses to do!

Moreover I think your game would need a PRE #1 (Roll Phase): Determine the ORDER OF PLAY. And what I mean is something like this: "Each player rolls 2d6. The player with the LOWEST score starts. Play continues clockwise..."

Why? Because as I said earlier, being the LAST player to play his turn has a DEEPER STRATEGY in figuring out which dice he wants to select. Like I said, your *concurrent* dice rolling is losing so much strategy your game could have. Players will WANT to *watch* the opponent, because they can see what would be the BEST dice to keep!

Think about it... It's your game. But if it was me, I would go with the *watching* because it could affect/alter your game play!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Dynamite Dice

I am unsure if I understand the *Dynamite Dice*.

If with that dice, I roll a 5 does that mean I get to blow up 5 tracks? Is says in the rulebook that it is a *countdown timer*... Not sure I understand.

There is something with the rules that is unclear with the dice... Because if I rolled a 6 with that dice, I would sabotage EACH PLAYER'S tracks (6 of them). So the meaning of the *Dynamite Dice* is nebulous...

Alternatively you could use a CUSTOM *Dynamite Dice*: with three 0 and 1-3 = 50% odds of nothing/or something). That range and odds might seem more logical for the game. The BEST CASE is you can sabotage each of your opponent's tracks. 50% of the time you blowup NOTHING.

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
I get it...

I like your suggestion for the dynamite dice. The count down timer was this: If I role a 5, then I have to wait 5 turns before I could blow up 1 track.

But I think I prefer your idea or 50% chance of selecting active dynamite and blow up 1 track that turn.

I also see your point in taking turns and why. During play testing, I would of course cover up my roll with my hands so that other players wouldnt get to see what I rolled or what I selected. Once the select phase is over and the players move into the purchase phase, they could not change their minds (I liken it to the planning phase of A Game of Thrones. Once you move into the action phase, you cannot change your mind).

Screens and hiding your rolls or selections are not part of ther rules, but would be a smart way to play so others would not be able to anticipate how you play. Do you think this is ok, or should a rule or screens be created to indicate that secrecy is important?

I will play test turn taking and see what kind of strategy occurs from that. Thanks for the suggestion.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Covering up

Well if you cover up your rolls, this could lead to CHEATING... Like a player could roll a *Sheriff* and like switch it to a *Bandit*... and not get caught. Things that happen in *secret* are prone to manipulation. That's why if things are open and visible on a player's turn, he cannot be accused of cheating. Moreover the only players that benefit from seeing what was rolled are the players playing AFTER him!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Other ideas

Okay so if you want PARALLEL play, I would add things that encourage parallel play.

For example: If you roll a *Bandit* on your turn, you can steal one of the opposing player's tiles and play it as your OWN. The action is IRREVERSIBLE!

Another point: Bandit tiles MUST BE IN THE PLAYER'S COLOR (background). If you want to know which bandit is stealing points for which player, you need to color code bandits. So for example if I am the Blue player, when I play a *Bandit*, it should be a BLUE BACKGROUND. Otherwise you don't know what bandit is stealing points for which player! This was a little bit confusing in the rulebook... (because you don't color code tiles).

The *Sheriff* should have some *alternate* power. For example, in my idea of a Bandit stealing a tile, if you (ANY PLAYER) have a *Sheriff* you can CAPTURE a player's (COLOR CODED) Bandit and score like 2 Points. Two things happen here:
1-You encourage players to help other players by rewarding them with additional points!
2-Limit the AMOUNT of Bandit and Sheriff tiles. Let's say since you can build 4 towns, you get 4 of each...

The Pony Express: This is an *abstract* idea.... What I was thinking is you could use like 3 Bandits to steal money from a TRAIN... And earn EXTRA points... Maybe when you are building your tracks/cities there is a TRAIN (1 tile - simple to implement) that goes from city to city and gathers money. The player with a captured TRAIN at the end of the game earns like +5 points (or some other point value reward).

To FREE the TRAIN from the 3 Bandits, you need 2 Sheriffs. The player who frees the train, get's it to travel along it's railroad track. At the end of the game a FREE train earns that player +2 points...

Note: To determine which player the TRAIN will go on FIRST is easy: the first player to build a minimum of 3 tracks and 1 town to cap a railroad gets the train first...

To *rob* the train you need 3 bandits. To *free* it you need 2 sheriffs! SIMPLE and adds something to the game! :)

Note 2: I REALLY LIKE the idea of having a TRAIN... You should *explore* that as something to add to your game... It could like *ENFORCE* building rules (like minimum 3 tracks to each town - if you want the train to be able to travel along your tracks...)

Instead of a static value (+5 Victory points) if would be cool if the train could be a JACKPOT. You ROB it when you feel it has enough MONEY (Points). Maybe each city it rolls into gives +1 Points. A Blown up track STOPs the train from continuing along the tracks. When you ROB it (with 3 Bandits) you EARN the Points it has accumulated so far... (Again just *abstract* ideas) When you free it (with 2 Sheriffs) you gain the right to the train on your tracks (again so it can gather more points...)