Dicey Designs

The use of dice in strategy games has for a long time brought tears to the eyes of purists. There are those who still deny Backgammon status as an abstract strategy, simply because of the tactical element introduced by dice. They are perhaps one reason why the classic Campaign, printed by Waddingtons in the 1970's, had limited appeal - despite the clearly strategic movement of armies and generals.

Let's face it, the reason dice are so frowned upon is that they are random. To many a "serious" gamer, the mere sight of this pariah of strategic play is enough to turn them away from a game which, potentially, could be a winner.

Potentially.

Over the last decade or so, there have been interesting alternative uses of dice in games of strategy. Sure, they usually introduce a tactical element; however, the overall tactical influence is usually minimal in the best examples. For the purposes of this discussion, I am choosing to ignore games in which dice are permanently used as something other than random elements - that is to say, they are used to indicate variance in the state of something (as in Iron Crown Enterprise's Fellowship of the Ring - units were represented by dice, the side displayed representing the unit's readiness or stance).

Let's take a look at Railroad Dice (RRD), for example. Every turn, players roll a number of dice. These dice may then, according to the sides which emerge, be used to buy shares, build track and place stations. Dice with track symbols uppermost are placed on the board to represent track being built. Clearly there is some element of chance involved in RRD, which pushes the game into a semi-tactical niche; however, as with most games of this type, it is mitigated. Players are permitted to utilise extra dice from their own supply to increase the chances of getting a symbol they are after.

Ultimately, the difference between dice turning a game into a game of chance and dice being a chaotic-but-manageable mechanism depends entirely upon how they are employed in the game. Whilst RRD might restrict actions to a certain extent, the dice employ "wildcards", which can be used as any of the other types; this means it's highly likely you won't get everything you want, but you will get something. Thus, an overall strategy can be approached. The mechanism is utilised in a fashion which allows for meaningful decisions; not just during the turn, but for the long-term game. Despite this, ultimately, assuming every player makes the optimal choice based upon what is available, the game will come down to who gets the best rolls.

Yspahan is another game in which, for me, this aspect is even more prevalent. A large number of dice are rolled, allocated to various actions according to a strict hierarchy, a set chosen by each player during the turn and one of three possible actions taken (placement/collection, movement or drawing a card). In my experience, the strategies are so obvious, the dice make the game. The last option, drawing a card, is usually the last choice; the action you take because there's nothing better going on. If a player can make a placement to score, it's a no-brainer; not only does he score, he prevents somebody else scoring there. Movement of the "bailiff" (not sure of his name in this one, but he basically penalises another player) benefits everybody but the targetted player (who may himself benefit, as points are given for joining caravans); for that reason it takes second place to the placement option. Again, not a bad game at all; but certainly very tactical, and not removed enough from the blind chance of the dice-roll for my tastes.

There are, of course, improvements on this type of system. The first of this type I came across was Kingsburg; it's not a far cry from Yspahan, however each player has his own dice, which are used in a variation on worker placement.  Members of the King's court may be influenced, by one player only (exception: possession of the King's Envoy allows a second placement), in order to gather resources for building, soldiers for defence of the city, victory points or some special action. As every player can see what every other player has rolled, the play can be a little tactical; but ultimately players are making their choices based on their strategic choices for what to build. Particular buildings give special benefits and bonuses; the Church, for example, allows rolls totaling seven or less to be rerolled. Blind chance might force a player behind in this game, but the King's envoy and other benefits are provided to assist the trailing player.

In a similar fashion, Troyes utilises dice for worker placement; in this case the "workers" are represented by pieces other than dice, but dice are required to place them. The twist with Troyes, quite an interesting twist, is that you get to use other player's dice - for a price, of course! The problem with a system like this is that unless you roll well yourself, you're almost certainly going to be down on your cash and/or influence - whether you need to buy somebody else's dice or attract others into buying yours completely depends on how good your dice come up! For me this makes the spread of probabilities a touch too great for my tastes; players tend to be guided tactically by what dice are available, and hence the way forward is often situationally influenced.

For some games, situational influences are a good thing; War of the Ring (WotR), for example, utilises dice as representative of strategic opportunities. In this game, one side plays Sauron and his armies, whilst the other plays the Free Peoples of Middle Earth. In a fashion not too dissimilar to RRD, the dice are rolled and used to perform different functions. Unlike RRD, the dice are recycled. Dice can allow a military action, the search for the ringbearer or a change in the political stance of one of the nations involved. That's all there is to them; they're unlikely to affect the strategic outcome, unlike, say, who controls Isengard, Minas Tirith or Helm's Deep - that's something the ordinary, non-specialised dice are used for!

When all is said and done, the only conclusion I can reach is that dice have a lot in common with fire; they make a good servant and a poor master. When dice dominate, the result is frequently a game that plays you; and nobody likes to be played.