Besties
The the previous two posts, we've talked about how adding dice together changes the weight of different kinds of rolls. But what if we AREN'T adding the dice together? What if people roll several dice and keep only the best roll?
Let's assume you have a game where a player rolls 1d6 and scores a point if it's a 4 or higher. What are his chances? 50%: [1,2,3] don't score and [4,5,6] do. Same as flipping a coin, right? So what would happen to his chances if you let him roll 3 times and keep the highest roll? Would his odds of scoring improve?
Showing posts with label board game. Show all posts
Showing posts with label board game. Show all posts
2.28.2015
Dice for Non-Mathematicians - 201
Rolling At Leasts
Let's imagine a game where you I roll 1d6 and you roll 1d6 and have to tie or beat me. So, I roll a 5. Sweet. What were the odds that I would roll a 5? Well, obviously 1 in 6.
Now, what are the odds that you will tie or beat me? Your possible roll table is [1,2,3,4,5,6], meaning out of 6 possibilities, you have 2 chances. Ergo, your odds are 2-in-6 (33%).
You probably could have worked that out without a roll table. What you probably didn't do, but is at the heart of this topic, is to add together the individual chances for each winning roll... but that's exactly how it works.
Let's imagine a game where you I roll 1d6 and you roll 1d6 and have to tie or beat me. So, I roll a 5. Sweet. What were the odds that I would roll a 5? Well, obviously 1 in 6.
Now, what are the odds that you will tie or beat me? Your possible roll table is [1,2,3,4,5,6], meaning out of 6 possibilities, you have 2 chances. Ergo, your odds are 2-in-6 (33%).
You probably could have worked that out without a roll table. What you probably didn't do, but is at the heart of this topic, is to add together the individual chances for each winning roll... but that's exactly how it works.
10.02.2014
Prototyping Skatepark Legends
I have been working (whenever I can steal a free minute) on a new project for the Time Challenge contest on TheGameCrafter.
While not all of the features are fully realized yet, I am pleased to share a look at the current prototype. I think I would go as far as saying this probably marks the turn from alpha to beta.
 |
| Prototype Board with Papercraft models! |
The basic gameplay is a risk/reward mechanic, where players must manage their speed and movement efficiently, while still throwing down the most challenging tricks they think they can pull off.
Only one player is active at a time, and I may address that in a formalized way, but I want to see if the social component of the game (i.e. watching your friend's run, cheering them on, trying to talk them into risky tricks, etc.) are compelling enough to leave it alone. I suspect it might be... I hope so, honestly, because that keeps it more in line with the spirit of competitive skating.
As an aside: you'll notice I've included little "papercraft" models. They are purely ornamental, and do not change game play - but they sure make the board look cool. I plan on shipping the game with the templates in the box on nice glossy paper for folks to make their own.
I heard quite a bit of skepticism about papercraft components when I pitched the idea to some peers - principally because of how fragile they would be. But I designed them with durability in mind, and because of their small size, they've stood up pretty well so far.
And of course, downloads of the template will be available, so the models will be inexpensive to replace, if need be.
8.26.2009
Across the Table: Gaming as a Communal Experience
When I mention that I make games as a hobby, the first question I usually get is, "Like... video games?" The answer is no. Not, mind you, because I oppose them in principle. I am an avid video gamer and I would be very amenable to the idea of working on one.
On the other hand, the answer is no not because I don't have the resources or know-how. I have moderate flash skills and my own copy of the software. I could be making (and have made) computer-based games. There are some real limits on what I could do, but not really any more so than are imposed on me by not using that medium.
The answer is no because I want to sit at a table with someone. I want to hold the cards or roll the dice or move the pieces. And even as I write on this ephemeral, ethereal idea that is a blog on the internet, I have to say I like to get away from my computer screen.
People behave differently in person than they do remotely. This should not be news to most of you. In person, people are generally more patient, more gracious, more considerate, and more reasonable. Playing is more of a cooperative endeavor when there is no artificial mediator. On a computer, players seldom have to work through interpreting a rule; reaching mutual agreement about "fairness" is a non-issue in that setting. The remotely mediated gaming experience implies naturally less ownership than the cooperatively administered game.
More and more, modern gaming is about getting together, not getting away. I think this goes beyond merely wanting to have multiple players. I think the trend is toward hanging-out while playing.
Consider what Xbox Live has done to gaming. You'd think being able to play against people all over the world would be a matter of satisfying the hardcore, best-in-the-world types. But when you really think about the Xbox Live experience it can be (and usually is) more about finding partners and teammates, talking (or even video conferencing) with friends, and "hanging out," than it is about ladders and rankings. The whole notion of achievements is built around the idea that people are interested in other people as people beyond their function in a particular match.
This struck me acutely as I watched a stream of Blizzcon. Blizzard has been in the business of matchmaking for their games for well over a decade now through a service they call Battlenet. One of the big reveals (in fact it tool up the bulk of one of their panels on the long awaited StarCraft 2) was a total overhaul to Battle.net.
What caught my attention was when the presenter was talking about the places they looked for ideas and inspiration for how the new Battle.net would work... and things like Facebook and Google Chat were mentioned. That little tidbit gave me a great deal of pause. What sort of implications does that have? It seemed both perfectly natural, and perfectly surreal that the Battle.net changes are not aimed primarily at improving gameplay (such as improved stat tracking and ranking algorithms, though I'm sure they have been working hard in those areas). The renovation is moving to a trans-gaming community experience.
Conceptually speaking, the game is ceasing to be "the thing as such" and is becoming (or perhaps returning to being) the vehicle for a communal experience.
Sure there are still games that we can play in isolation. I hope that developers will always make games with "campaigns" and single-player content. After all, sometimes I game because I do want to get away. But such times for me are much more the exception than the rule.
Which is why, as a designer, I still like dice. I still like sitting across the table from a person. I like the burden of hashing out an agreement on rules. I'm just old-fashioned like that. Or progressive. Take your pick.
On the other hand, the answer is no not because I don't have the resources or know-how. I have moderate flash skills and my own copy of the software. I could be making (and have made) computer-based games. There are some real limits on what I could do, but not really any more so than are imposed on me by not using that medium.
The answer is no because I want to sit at a table with someone. I want to hold the cards or roll the dice or move the pieces. And even as I write on this ephemeral, ethereal idea that is a blog on the internet, I have to say I like to get away from my computer screen.
People behave differently in person than they do remotely. This should not be news to most of you. In person, people are generally more patient, more gracious, more considerate, and more reasonable. Playing is more of a cooperative endeavor when there is no artificial mediator. On a computer, players seldom have to work through interpreting a rule; reaching mutual agreement about "fairness" is a non-issue in that setting. The remotely mediated gaming experience implies naturally less ownership than the cooperatively administered game.
More and more, modern gaming is about getting together, not getting away. I think this goes beyond merely wanting to have multiple players. I think the trend is toward hanging-out while playing.
Consider what Xbox Live has done to gaming. You'd think being able to play against people all over the world would be a matter of satisfying the hardcore, best-in-the-world types. But when you really think about the Xbox Live experience it can be (and usually is) more about finding partners and teammates, talking (or even video conferencing) with friends, and "hanging out," than it is about ladders and rankings. The whole notion of achievements is built around the idea that people are interested in other people as people beyond their function in a particular match.
This struck me acutely as I watched a stream of Blizzcon. Blizzard has been in the business of matchmaking for their games for well over a decade now through a service they call Battlenet. One of the big reveals (in fact it tool up the bulk of one of their panels on the long awaited StarCraft 2) was a total overhaul to Battle.net.
What caught my attention was when the presenter was talking about the places they looked for ideas and inspiration for how the new Battle.net would work... and things like Facebook and Google Chat were mentioned. That little tidbit gave me a great deal of pause. What sort of implications does that have? It seemed both perfectly natural, and perfectly surreal that the Battle.net changes are not aimed primarily at improving gameplay (such as improved stat tracking and ranking algorithms, though I'm sure they have been working hard in those areas). The renovation is moving to a trans-gaming community experience.
Conceptually speaking, the game is ceasing to be "the thing as such" and is becoming (or perhaps returning to being) the vehicle for a communal experience.
Sure there are still games that we can play in isolation. I hope that developers will always make games with "campaigns" and single-player content. After all, sometimes I game because I do want to get away. But such times for me are much more the exception than the rule.
Which is why, as a designer, I still like dice. I still like sitting across the table from a person. I like the burden of hashing out an agreement on rules. I'm just old-fashioned like that. Or progressive. Take your pick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)