Realisations about narrative dice mechanics — everything I have learned so far

Authoring General Design Discussions
1

Spending time on this forum, and thinking about the subject of dice rolls in video games, I came to a number of realisations or conclusions which I would like to share. If anyone wishes to do so, feel free to respond with your own findings, I’m trying to form a better mental framework on how to do justice to the mechanic.

Why do I care so much about this?
I like tabletop roleplaying games. I have tried in the past to do forum roleplaying, but it wasn’t quite the same. I missed the enforced randomness of the dice, the uncertainty that when you perform an action, the outcome is uncertain.

For a similar reason, I don’t always enjoy narrative mechanics which rely on a simple gate mechanic. Games like Pentiment, Fallout New Vegas or The Life and Suffering of Sir Brante. I enjoyed all of these, but they turn me into a bit of a powergamer. Instead of giving me the space to roleplay, I often feel like I am simply picking the options because I unlocked them, or try to optimise and read online guides what particular scores I need at what point in the game in order to pass the gates.

I like the randomness of things not always working out, but this feeling is not universal. When I played Disco Elysium, I could accept failures for skills I was bad at easy enough. However, it was the one-time checks for skills I otherwise excelled at which really bothered me. For some reason, failing a check which had a great deal of narrative weight on it, which I would normally excel at felt like I was robbed of the opportunity to make my character shine.

Now, admittedly, this has been an obsession of mine for a few years now, originally with the idea of “how can I make a cRPG feel more like a TTRPG?” and later specifically aiming at the dice rolls.

What do I think the problem is?
There are several ways of looking at this I think.

1. The matter of narrative agency
When you make a decision in both a cRPG or a TTRPG, you essentially assert you would like to see the narrative be steered in a certain way. In a TTRPG, you assert this towards the game master, who will take into account both your dice roll/check, and the narrative circumstances you have invoked. Based on this, new content is created on the spot. This content has the advantage of taking into account a great deal of things, and your assertion is in some way acknowledged. You have helped shape the narrative in some way.

However, most cRPGs simply have a pass state and a fail state. Even if you are the most genius of doctors, what will happen if you fail a Medicine check is you are (often, but not always) described as a bumbling fool, clearly without a day of medical training. I am exaggerating a bit, but this is definitely what Disco Elysium can feel like.

2. The weight of the roll
A single roll can have weight to it. Rolling a die during combat determines the outcome of one strike. It doesn’t feel so bad to fail here. A single roll during dialogue can (narratively) save the life of hundreds. If great rewards lie behind that single roll, the effect is the same: failure feels terrible.

I felt this a lot in Rogue Trader. It’s a wonderful game, but there’s quite a few good rewards, both narrative and material locked behind difficult rolls. As you can imagine, I did not always appreciate these.

So, how could this be alleviated?
There are at least a few observations I made over time, and if you have any, I would love to hear them.

1. See the dice rolls
This may sound silly, but it helps give the player buy-in to the fact there is a random element to the narrative. If the player doesn’t know there is a roll or check, the narrative can feel like it simply decided the outcome for you without consulting or informing you of this. Many games do this, and it feels like what little agency I have is not being respected as much.

2. Offer a choice between a safe option and a risky or uncertain roll
By presenting a choice, you create a level of player buy-in. They chose to attempt the roll, now they may deal with the consequences. So long as the other options also respect player agency narratively speaking this should be fine. It has to be an actual, valid option. I.e.

  1. Accept the offer of 100 gold
  2. Ask the guy for a favor instead
  3. [Persuasion] Try to get him to give you both

Though, if you are building a parser game, I’m sure there is some interesting narrator-esque things you can do, where the narrator will first ask you whether you wish to risk the route you are taking. This also respects the player’s agency.

3. Rerolling important checks
Not all checks are of equal weight. Some are just a flirtatious comment, the other the start or end of a relationship. I can deal with a low-weight check going awry, but a big one? If I am a charming individual, please grant me that fantasy, and let me take another shot at a 90% check.

4. Telegraph the weight of the check
This is just an errant thought while writing out point #3, but it’s something I wish many games had. Let me know how big the consequence of a check is. Not even the actual outcome, just the magnitude. It helps me decide whether to spend those precious rerolls. here, or keep them in hand.

5. Decouple the roll from the effect
Essentially, make all opportunities to roll places with no actual weight on them yet. I.e. rolls are reserved for slowly building up (narrative) currency which can be spent later during big narrative sections. Speak to the lady at the tavern daily and make a persuasion check. Then, when the day comes, she trusts you due to all your previous interactions, and you “spend” the trust or use it as a key to unlock certain dialogue.

6. Make the rewards of failure and success equal
This is a thing I realised while playing Fallen London. Failure can feel really good, if I know that I am being compensated for it. More specifically, if I am being explicitely compensated for it. Say I fail a big check and get wounds, but I also get the ‘Looks like he could use a compliment’ quality, I can then spend that quality to, for example, unlock a romance option I had been eyeing. If I know from the outset that my failure is opening a door elsewhere, it becomes easier to accept this temporary setback.

7. The temporary setback
This can be integrated into the narrative as a whole as well. I realised this playing Esoteric Ebb (and discussed this with @artmuse62 at the time). What this game does really well, is that it provides multiple solutions or outcomes to a problem. Usually the check is the most direct route, but if you fail, this doesn’t taint the narrative as much. Instead, it provides a single moment of hilarity, before the game picks you up and points you to other completely valid (and non-trolleyproblemesque) options you still have.

8. Narrative currency
This is a simple one, and often employed by TTRPGs. Failure grants you narrative currency which can be spent. The QBN system hinges the entire narrative on this, but it can also simply be implemented by granting XP or rerolls.

9. Committing to failure
If the player already commits to the fact they can fail, it becomes much easier to accept the authority of a roll. This is what I feel happens when you play a game on Ironman (single save) mode. Because you cannot go back, the outcome becomes easier to accept. Still, if the outcome is too terrible, it might just cause you to put down the game instead.

10. Picking the outcome
This ties in strongly with the narrative agency thing. Say you fail a check. Rather than having the game decide how you fail, put this choice in the hands of the player. You failed your check to fight back against the goblins? Alright, where do they hurt you? What happens now? This can even be tied in with a narrative currency system. You fail, yes. Now you get to pick an outcome. But if have failed many times before, you have enough ‘Hard Lessons’ to buy the best of these bad outcomes.

11. Randomising the narrative
By having snippets of randomised narrative, it can make the player feel like the entire world doesn’t hinge on their single roll. Instead, any failure and any success could lead to exploring new options that do not greatly affect the overall narrative. Each piece of narrative helps you build a legend surrounding yourself until you reach the more difficult, but still randomised content.

12. You are just very good at this
I don’t love automatic success thresholds, but they can be used to ensure good outcomes if you really bought into a particular skill/trait. However, you could instead put the weight on the outcome. If you are an experienced doctor, failure at a medicine check simply means very little happens. The bad stuff only happens if you are in fact, inexperienced. This way the narrative acknowledges how you built your character, while still not granting you everything.

In conclusion
These are just some options I came up with from the top of my head. What do you all think? I would love to hear your opinions!

10 Likes
2

I don’t know whether you’ve come across the concept of input randomness versus output randomness? Many traditional RPGs have an “output randomness” system whereby you make decisions, then the result is randomised in some way (e.g you decide what to do, then roll versus a certain threshold to find out if you succeed or fail). Many board game mechanics, on the other hand, make the results of player decisions totally predictable, but give you a randomised set of resources or options to work with (“input randomness”).

For an example of a TTRPG mechanic based on input randomness, see here:

3 Likes
3

“Decouple the roll” and “Picking the outcome” are both forms of input randomness. (I think I used to hear this called “fortune in the middle” in old RPG discussions.) Citizen Sleeper is built on this sort of system – I know Randozart mentioned that in an earlier post.

3 Likes
4

I absolutely love this discussion and your post on it. I have (eventual) plans to create an IF RPG with d20 dice rolls (specifically Pendragon system inspired), and consider myself a fairly good GM, so I’ve got some thoughts on the subject.

No game, tabletop or not, should describe a failed check as “you are a bumbling fool”. Even if you roll the worst possible thing, the player character is by a cut above the average, that’s what makes them a player character (in almost all systems). To take your doctor example, a skilled doctor can accomplish a routine surgery via an automatic success, UNLESS there are complications. So maybe there’s a time crunch that forces the roll, and a fumble/nat1/whatever means that the patient has an additional, unforeseen, problem that keeps the doctor from succeeding not due to the problem itself, but the fact that the problem can’t be solved in the limited time frame that necessitated the roll in the first place. Even without asking a player how their character failed, you can assuage the wound by describing how awesome they are while almost accomplishing their goals.

One thing I plan to incorporate in my IF RPG is the concept of statuses. You don’t need to have the player “cash in” built on trust in the same way if it is applied as a bonus to the roll. Because it doesn’t remove the random element, just weights the odds in the player’s favor, I feel comfortable letting that status continue, rather than be “spent”.

I also plan to let players choose between two (or more) stats to roll with, aka use different approaches to a situation, to get their buy in.

On the topic of some rolls being weighted more than others: I think statuses and NPC trust stats can alleviate some of this. Sure, there’s a single roll that determines the fate of hundreds, but they’ve been working towards this, it shouldn’t come out of nowhere. Even if it’s a surprise, the player should have been building up stats, or alliances with NPCs, or otherwise rigging the game in their favor through their choices and successful rolls.

Also, one of the major differences between TTRPGs and the games I like to write is the number of timelines. Sure, it feels bad to fail the massive roll and get a death screen, but if you write the game correctly then they’ll learn something interesting about the world and NPCs via the failed route, allowing them to explore other options on the next play through. You don’t really have that with TTRPGs.

3 Likes
5

I actually love that you brought this up, because while I recall digging up a lot of D. Vincent Baker’s old forum posts, and refer to the mechanics of those games, they seem to slip from my mind from time to time. Most likely, because I didn’t have the mental scaffolding to hold them, which you’ve now provided. Thank you! Yes Otherkind is a game with a lovely way of handling consequence, same with Dogs in the Vineyard. I’ve tried to take inspiration from both in the past, but perhaps I ought to give them a second look.

I am honestly flattered you recall my mentioning it. Yes, I think Citizen Sleeper is a wonderful step in the right direction, though I do find it works best in the format it is provided in, but is a bit more difficult to intergrate with moment-to-moment checks. Then again, those moment-to-moment checks could instead affect the resources needed to generate the rolls in the first place. I do still need to look at the sequel, maybe it introduces some interesting ideas?

6

I might be repeating something you mentioned already, but hopefully not…

I think everyone can agree that there is a point when a character has “mastery” of something. They simply will not fail. However the degree of success is up for grabs and potentially unanticipated (unwanted?) consequences.

You punch out the drunkard (success or mastery), but you send him flying into the barmaid spilling everyone’s drinks and now you look like “trouble” to all the patrons (failure, but with mastery) versus your opponent stumbling and avoiding your pathetic strike attempt (failure without mastery).

I think merging successful actions with undesirable results is a refreshing take.

The system that primed my mind to this sort of thinking is:

→ Charge https://fari-rpgs.itch.io/charge-rpg
→ Dash (Condensed Charge) https://fari-rpgs.itch.io/dash

It’s basically a story-focused TTRPG rule system that embraces failure to keep the narrative going.

2 Likes
7

Success but with unexpected consequences is a nice way to add tension to actions where you have so many passive buffs even a nat 1 puts you above the usual success threshold.

Failure, but still looking awesome is another possible route.

Let’s say your character is a parkour expert and you’re trying to scale a wall that’s twice your height. For someone less skilled, failure might look like failing to grab the top of the wall at the height of your jump and landing flat on your back, taking fall damage in the process, but for you, failure to scale that wall on the first try looks like you grab a loose brick from the top of the wall that can’t hold your weight, and as you start to fall, you toss the brick aside, kick off the wall into a back flip, and land on both feet, knees bending to absorb the impact unharmed. Of course, this could carry different story weight depending on the situation. If you’re exploring some ruins, you’re free to try again and hope for a solidhand hold whereas if it’s during a chase scene through a city, it might slow you down just enough to let whoever you’re chasing to escape and force you having to track them down again.

5 Likes
8

I’m a little surprised you’re lumping Disco Elysium with “games that do this badly”-- many of the “alleviation” points you mentioned, Disco Elysium already does. I think the only ones it doesn’t do at all are 3, 8, & 10-12. (honestly it does 8 in a roundabout way-- you can get xp to level up your skills from all kinds of actions, successes & failures). 7ish/12 is pretty good. Plus, being kind of variably competent at stuff makes 100% sense for an amnesiac alcoholic detective. But if it doesn’t work for you then it doesn’t work for you.

I’m curious if you think all of these points need to be implemented for a game to do this in a satisfying way, or if something else about DE dissatisfies you. It, like citizen sleeper, is inspired by ttrpgs (d&d/a custom system called METRIC, and blades in the dark respectively). but it seems iirc you didn’t like CS either (it also does many of these alleviation points).

I think that ttrpgs are just not gonna be the same as video games; they’re different mediums.

1 Like
9

DE does characterize the player as a bumbling fool; this is the entire premise for Harry’s story. Some people find that off-putting. That’s not a problem with the mechanics though. The mechanics support it fine. So does the writing; failure is entertaining and also story progress.

(Okay, allowing you to die on the first skill check was maybe a poor design decision.)

5 Likes
10

we are in agreement :slight_smile:

2 Likes
11

It hasn’t been mentioned and assume everyone is familiar with Fallen London’s QBN “grind” mechanics. A QBN (quality based narrative) might be thought of as a gamebook on steroids. In this case the Game Master is the dice and the randomness of card-drawing, and the stats/variables/qualities the character has defines their abilities, condition, what choices they can activate, and there can be a random chance of failure or success built into a choice.

“Grind” is repeatedly doing something to alter a statistic. I think in some of the Bethesda games you might have a climb/dexterity skill. You can try to climb a wall, but if you’ve never done it your climb stat is low so you’ll fall, but the attempt at doing so ticks the stat up by 1 simulating “experience” - you’ve tried to climb a wall and perhaps learned a bit about the process, so you climb the wall again and you might get further since your stat increases and it ticks up again. There may even be a random chance whether your stat does go up, or there might be a chance of injuring yourself in the process, meaning you can’t just blindly grind the stat up all at once if you bloody your hands. Eventually you get better at an action by repeating the action or the attempt and eventually the dice will fall in your favor.

The more things you spend time doing in the morning at the sink and mirror: brushing your teeth, washing your face, combing your hair, using mouthwash, applying makeup - those all contribute to your outward presentation, make you feel better, and could be thought of as incrementing your charisma stat so when you go on your job interview, you have a better chance of getting the job when you roll that die.

Grind mechanics in games can somewhat simulate elements of real life - you have to try and stumble several times on a bike before you figure out the balance and can ride it.

This works best if the player has multiple opportunities and isn’t forced to grind to climb the wall. I might also have the opportunity to grind my Speech stat to flatter the guards to let me in the main gate instead of parkouring over the wall.

Mechanically in a lot of my games I set this up usually as a stat that goes from 0 to 10. If I attempt to pick a lock, randomly generate a number from 1-10/roll a d10 and the roll must be under your stat to succeed. If you fail, there’s a random chance of increasing the stat through experience (making the process of failing not hopeless) or there may be a chance of “critical fail” if I roll a 10 the guards hear me and an alert is sounded. If you want constant chance of failure you can roll a d12 against a stat with a maximum of 10 so there is always something that can go wrong even when a stat is maxed.

3 Likes
12

My favorite RPG GM advice about dice is from Nathan Russell’s Freeform Universal RPG rulebook (free download; used to be popular among solo RPGers, but not sure if many still play it):

“Every time you call for a die roll it should mean something interesting is
going to happen, No MATTER THE RESULT. Don’t have players make rolls if the result is not important to the story, or if failure will stop the momentum of the story.”

I think that would be a good approach to randomness in all game genres. It is fun when everything is not 100% predictable, but not fun if the game (i.e. story) ends abruptly because of a bad die roll. It’s OK that the thing I wanted to happen did not happen, but ideally the game should instead throw something even more fun at me that drives the story forward.

But I no longer trust randomness much in digital games. I know too much about how the sausage is made. I read articles about how to cheat with dice behind the scenes. Pretend that something has a 70% chance of success, but it’s actually 95% (to make players feel better). Pretend that it is dice, but secretly treat it like a deck of cards instead. I hate it. I want random to be random and that the information the game presents is the truth about what my chances are. Don’t lie to players.

Making bad things less likely is no fix. Design away the bad things from the game instead. I understand it is more work, but it is better than just fudging the die rolls. And don’t waste time on “luck mitigation”. That’s just extra fluff to make rolls even more likely to be successful, while pretending you are giving the player more agency.

4 Likes
13

I sadly hadn’t been able to respond all day, so here’s me reading everything that has been posted in the meantime.

Let me actually start off with this. I’d like to at least clarify I do not at all advocate for implementing all of these methods simultaneously. I’m honestly not even sure if it would make a good game if you would do that. I would like to also state I think Citizen Sleeper is a really good game, and definitely works the way it’s set up. Outside of that setup, perhaps not so much, but I feel it’s one of the fairest dice roll mechanics out there.

However, that circles back to a game like DE which might already implement some of these. Your comment on this had me reflect on the game. One of the pillars it tries to adhere to is for failure to be fun and interesting, and while I agree some failure states are indeed interesting, they kind of feel like a kick to the gut. Even if they don;t directly close off certain narrative paths (after a single check), they certainly feel like they do. This was what prompted the discussion under point 7.

Esoteric Ebb is very much a DE-like, but failing does not feel like narrative paths/entire narrative sections are immediately closed off. It might really just be presentation, but it does a much better job at communicating that the roll didn’t just block you off from a lot of potential interesting content.

And yes, DE does have rerolls, but usually on the checks that feel like they really don’t matter as much, at least in my opinion. Mostly the ‘gate’ checks that might be useful in progressing the story.

To this I would like to clarify that I also agree. Harry is a bumbling fool. He’s incredibly well written that way. I do believe I would enjoy that more if I didn’t feel like a single roll would block me off from a great deal of interesting things to explore. I suppose this has to do less with narrative agency (point 1 of the problem statement, since the character is very well defined), but instead the narrative weight of the roll (point 2).

The “interesting” failure outcome still very much feels like a locked gate. To put it in modern TTRPG/improv theatre terms, it’s less of a “No, but…”, but more of a “No.” or a “No, and…”. This is much more permissable in a TTRPG I feel, because if the regular path doesn’t work out, the player can usually think of a new interesting path around this. In a computer RPG this only works if that path had actually been written and is narratively satisfying to the type of character you are trying to play.

Yes, Harry is a bumbling fool, but the game has done a great deal of flagging that this check, which I have a 96% success chance for, is an important one for pursuing that particular manner of investigation. Failing that requires very well written story to compensate. If the check had been 50%, maybe, sure. But even then, if the check is made to feel important, it’s difficult to justify.

Which, in some way, might be alleviated by this. If the check is of such great story importance, at least let me fail gracefully. If the check has much less weight to it though… I suppose looking like an idiot is not the worst, and well written narrative is a nice reward for failing.

Or this, this is a fascinating way to do this! Now, I should stop referencing DE, because I genuinely think it’s a good game, and I might sound like it’s the worst thing in the world, where I genuinely do enjoy it, but… Imagine if, during important checks, there is the pass state, the fail state, and the automatic-mastery-pass-but-you-rolled-a failure state. (@HAL9000 I promise I’ll read your link later to see how Charge and Dash handle it)

I.e. total JÖCK Harry tries to fight his way out. You put all of your points in the body skills, so you expect to fail raw intellectual reasoning, but you can hit your way out of a situation. Or at least, you’re supposed to. In this case, you could automatically succeed at the main objective, but create a different problem you need to find a way around. It’s kind of what you would do in a game which lets you pick consequences, but perhaps easier to implement in a more linear narrative.

I actually recently started playing FL due to your recommendation, because I wanted to understand the way it implements QBN better. Point 5 and 6 (and in some way 8) hinges on this. I really like the opportunities this gives, and I’m currently working to implement a QBN system in a Roguelike I’m building, while also considering it for an RPG I had on the backburner.

This could serve as a way to offer a simple dice roll on one option, or pick a certain option obtained or paid for due to grinding qualities (and thus having performed several dice rolls already). If done correctly, it makes situations you excel at mostly matters of resource management, whereas other situations become more tense.

I believe this is advice echoed by so many designers in the indie scene. In fact, I think it was originally mentioned by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World if I recall correctly. However, while great advice for tabletop roleplaying games, I feel this applies less to digital RPGs, for the mere reason that not everything can be interesting, and the author of the narrative is not directly able to connect with the player of the narrative,and thus estimate where the line is between interesting and punishing.

Writing this out though, I think is an interesting point to consider in and of itself. Huh.

I just wanted to throw this in as well, since it made me think of a few things I was considering a while back.

  1. A meta-currency earned from failure which can be used to load an earlier savegame
  2. The fact that failure can feel less bad in a game like Crusader Kings, because you know the event you might have just failed will probably come up again some other time, some other place.
  3. Another idea I had where each time you load an earlier savegame, or choose to reroll a check, you commit the game to a “darker” timeline or a different timeline where things have been changed outside of your control
3 Likes
14

14 posts were split to a new topic: Misrepresenting probability in digital games

15

It’s not that it handles it in a specific way; it just doesn’t stop the progress of the story, is all.

However, the one mechanic that I feel is a game changer for Charge is the Momentum system. That is worth diving into the rules for. It’s a novel approach that encourages and rewards players for taking risks.

1 Like
23

I was pretty sure that this advice predated AW (which drew on at least a decade of prior art in the indie RPG design community, including several previous works by the same authors) but I was having trouble pinning down where. I asked Vincent (dude is super approachable and nice!) and he said he doesn’t think that advice actually appears in AW at all, because it’s advice to the game designer, not to the GM. If you follow the rules of AW as laid out in the text, you already have a situation where you only roll when the outcome is interesting.

(This is all contingent on another idea which also isn’t original to AW but which AW probably introduced to a lot of players: that the GM should follow the rules of the game as written. Which is a weird thing to have to specify, except that D&D and many games that strive to emulate it instead tell the GM that they can disregard the rules and do whatever they like.)

1 Like
25

In which case, my bad. I’d loathe to spread misinformation, so thanks for verifying. Vincent really seemed like a wonderful person last time I reached out with some questions.

Either way, it probably is much better advice on tabletop than it is to video games, since the decision space available is much greater. Also, if you are then intentionally considering grind mechanics, the advice falls a little flat.

Though I very much agree with it for tabletop (unless I come across a reason not to)

26

So, this hasn’t left my mind, and I would appreciate some thoughts on this. It seems to me this can be solved in two ways:

  1. By managing player expectations, making it very clear what the stakes of something are going in, or the type of “narration style” the game uses.
  2. By giving the player some agency in steering the outcome so they can point out what they can deal with.
  3. By allowing the player to, in some way, signal the style of consequence they enjoy (essentially a ‘narrative difficulty’ selection)

Any ideas on this?

27

In the context to @pelle’s comment about keeping the story interesting and always moving forward, and you wondering if it’s viable for digital games because TTRPGs are mostly human adlib…

I think you have to write a lot of conditional/branching prose that redirects the narrative back to the main plot (or diverges altogether) for all instances of “failure to be satisfying”.

If you just want the player to understand that failure “doesn’t end the story”, do it early on with something that still has a very narrow chance of success (still being honest), but highly unlikely. Like have a 3-step narrative sequence where you have to make very risky choices. Eventually they succumb, but the story still moves on and hopefully the light bulb turns on.

If you want the game to move forward even though combat has ended poorly, have a mechanism where they either rewind time, the narrator interrupts and declares “that didn’t happen that way” [Bastion], their clone awakens in the lab (since the last save) [Phantasy Star II / EVE Online], or some random event where the player is dragged out of harm after they go unconscious [Outward].

In fact, Outward does it contextually (if I remember correctly): “die” by bandits and you awaken in prison, “die” in the wild and a traveler happens upon you and dresses your wounds, “die” near a city and you wake up in the hospital, etc. All your stuff is retrievable in a plausible way and actually leads to some interesting game areas to explore.

However, I feel this area of concern you have can really only be solved in the context of the game itself. Build a prototype, and see what works best.

2 Likes
28

That might be one way of doing it, certainly. I reckon that falls within the area of creating sufficient trust in the narrative in order to accept the calls of the digital GM. One thing that comes to mind is something Fallen London does effectively with some decisions. Essentially, after the flavor description, it writes out in bold text something along the lines of
Making this check always gives X, but failing might lead to Y

In this way, the player is at least reassured that the consequences are taken into account. Though, ‘training’ the player to expect consequences is also an idea worth exploring.

I do actually really like this, and it supports the idea that failure should create interesting opportunities rather than gate off certain narrative paths, though I wonder how much of this should hinge on a single dice roll. That is, of course, dependent on the type of game you’re building.

2 Likes