Post by Sungrass Press in Dice substitute for Jenga towers

Viewing post in Dice substitute for Jenga towers

My current thinking about the Jenga tower is that what it represents for the game, rather than the strict mathematics of it, is the more important part. So, what should it represent?

A growing sense of dread
Mounting pressure
A chance for the player to interact more directly with the game.

I like the 100d6 method that Sky posted, but I think it misses that last point a bit - the player doesn’t actually do much. I propose a revised version to address this problem.

You start with 100 points of supply, named as appropriate for your game. Whenever your supply is tested, scratch off any number of supply, then roll that same amount of d6s. If you can make a total of 16 or higher on your dice, you’re in the clear. If you can’t make 16 or higher, you’re dead.

16 was chosen because 600 / 36 rounds down to 16. 600 is the maximum of 100d6, and 36 is the practical maximum of pulls you can make from a standard 18-floor block tower before you’ve cannibalized the tower entirely. This not only lets the player decide between a more risky approach that’s likely to be more effective in the long term (choosing few dice) or a safer option that’s going to be costly later (choosing many dice). It also gives the player something mechanical to do, in that they have to add up the numbers.

BoyzieRpg4 years ago(+2)

I completely agree that the game needs something tangible that represents the situation you are in. For me the wobbles, the tension of probing and prodding the blocks and having to stack them back on top made for a very enjoyable role-playing stimulus. Also having something delicate and precarious to look at was also an incredible source of inspiration and motivation to play.

Speak the Sky4 years ago(+1)

It's an interesting option, but I think it runs into some problems by aiming for more complexity. From some quick anydice-ing:

7d6 works best: ~75% of the time you get to roll 14, then run out of dice
a mix of 7d6 and 6d6 gives you slightly more range, but your chances get worse enough that it's probably not worth it
anything else means you die in a few turns or waste dice (7d6 gives you a 98% chance of success per roll, 6d6=~90%), 5d6=~70%)

You could make the target less harsh (e.g. >=10) to extend the game a bit.

The real problems for me are 1) it has more and clearer responsibility for failure than jenga (where pulls are more drawn-out, skill-based, and obscure). Basically, it feels more arbitrary, but somehow also more my fault. 2) It adds a gamble, but everything is always at stake, so there isn't really any choice. That, and choosing which block to pull affects every future pull, but choosing how many dice to roll only affects how long the game can go on for.

I mean, these both have something in common (any failure = instant death), so what if there were multiple things at stake that you distribute dice between? That'd give more weight to your choices before and after you lose the things, since you could have pointed oracle questions about them even when they're gone. Alternatively, multiple layers of failure (e.g. someone posted an idea in the idea thread about a journalist on the case of a serial killer, who kills again every time the tower falls).

Sungrass Press4 years ago(+1)

anything else means you die in a few turns or waste dice (7d6 gives you a 98% chance of success per roll, 6d6=~90%), 5d6=~70%)

It has admittedly been a little while since I played Jenga, but I would estimate that a good number of the pulls I've made (especially in the later stages of the game) were well below 70% chance of success. 5 is definitely the lowest I'd go in terms of "reasonable chance", though; it drops off pretty harshly below that. A range of 14-20 reasonably successful pulls sounds about right to me.

One method that I would probably use to mitigate the risk of death would be borrowed from the grand-daddy of Jenga-based horror games, Dread. You give the player the choice of whether or not to pull. If they pull without fail, their story is slightly more positive. If they don't pull, they don't succeed at what they try to do, but at least they know they're not dying.

Basically, it feels more arbitrary, but somehow also more my fault.

Interesting! Personally, I would say that if I tip over a Jenga tower, it feels a lot more like my fault than if the dice I rolled ended up being low. That's not to dismiss your point of view: just saying that I don't share it.

what if there were multiple things at stake that you distribute dice between?

Alternatively, multiple layers of failure (e.g. someone posted an idea in the idea thread about a journalist on the case of a serial killer, who kills again every time the tower falls).

I am all for adding more options for dice results! For your first case, I could see something like, rather than having a single goal at 16, you could do two separate goals at 9 and 9, or whichever distribution is more appropriate for the situation. Towerfalls that aren't gameovers are fun as well, and depending on the concept, they can definitely be a good fit.

Speak the Sky4 years ago

A range of 14-20 reasonably successful pulls sounds about right to me.

Ah, 14 is the highest you can reasonably get, with pretty much the best strategy. 20 is what you can get if you succeed with every 5d6 roll, but if you roll 5d6 more than once then you're more likely dead than alive. Any mix of 7, 6, and 5d6 is worse than just 7d6—you get the possibility of some more rolls/turns in the future, but you're much less likely to get there.

It's very unforgiving—deviate from the strategy and you die quick or cut your game short by wasting dice. The problem then is either people go with the best strategy for part or all the game (so they have less/no choice) or they gamble and fail quick (so they don't play for long enough to have many choices). Most people aren't gonna figure out a strategy, so they'll go with option 2.

Interesting! Personally, I would say that if I tip over a Jenga tower, it feels a lot more like my fault than if the dice I rolled ended up being low. That's not to dismiss your point of view: just saying that I don't share it.

Yeah, 'more' was the wrong word—but it still has a single clear point of responsibility (making a single bad gamble) where jenga's drawn-out.

Sungrass Press4 years ago

Well said on all points. (I would say that Jenga still has a single point of responsibility, but I digress.) I've adapted this take on the system for my second submission, which is a lot more flexible when it comes to target numbers and failing a roll. Basically, we've got variable targets, multiple targets per prompt (on many, but not all) prompts, and failing to meet the prompt just means a less favorable outcome, rather than certain death. While I'm sure that each individual target number can still be optimized for, if one wants to play the spreadsheet game, the larger variance should mean that most of the problems we've discussed can be avoided.

itch.io

Viewing post in Dice substitute for Jenga towers