I designed a physical d1000 and RPG players react to it very differently than I expected

MiloMechanics

MiloMechanics

Habitué
Messages
5
Hi everyone,

For quite a while I've been experimenting with unusual physical dice concepts and alternative probability mechanics for tabletop gaming.

One of the strangest projects I ended up creating is a functional physical d1000.

What surprised me most wasn't only the manufacturing/design challenge, but the way people psychologically react to extremely large number ranges compared to traditional RPG dice like d20s or d100s.

A d20 feels manageable and familiar.
A d100 feels detailed.
But when people see a d1000, they immediately start imagining things differently:

  • massive critical tables
  • ultra-rare world events
  • huge loot systems
  • absurd spell effects
  • cosmic randomness
  • "one chance in a thousand" moments
Even players who would probably never actually use one in a campaign still seem fascinated by the idea of physically rolling such a large range.

So now I'm curious from an RPG design perspective:

Would you ever use a d1000 in an actual tabletop RPG?

If yes, what kind of mechanics or game situations do you think genuinely benefit from huge numerical ranges?

And if not, do you still find oversized/randomized probability systems emotionally or psychologically interesting as game objects?

I'd genuinely love hearing how other RPG players and GMs think about this. See image of the die attached.
 

Attachments

  • d1000.JPG
    d1000.JPG
    384.3 KB · Views: 11
O_Bruce

O_Bruce

Habitué
Messages
479
Hello! I am not a DM/GM, nor have I played much of tabletop RPGs (and what I did was Warhammer Fantasy years ago), so my input will be limited. I however hope that my first response will lead to more from other forumites.

First, I do respect ingenuity that comes with creating such a dice. Even if an idea or execution won't turn out to be practical, it's still neat to make it and find out. As I said, I am neither a GM nor have played tabletop, so after a respect for your creativity, my next reaction to your dice was: "is d1000 even practical"? Because while it's true that you can do much of what you've written down, in practice, I imagine it would be a lot of additional work work for GM/DM to prepare event tables, loot tables etc. for a session using d1000.

After that, my next thought was "less is more". Basically, I think a number creep isn't actually a good thing. Working on huge numbers in any game, inevitably leads to invidual numeric values to matter less. For instance, if you are operating a d20 in dungeon and dragons, then +1 to your saving throws or skill check does make a visible difference. You feel that. In d100, 1 point of difference in anything won't matter as much. And with d1000, it's even less. I don't think that working with big numbers for its own sake is necessary a strength. In videogames in particular, I think number creep is used to deliver a cheap dopamine shots, rather than provide a compelling game design.
 
MiloMechanics

MiloMechanics

Habitué
Messages
5
O_Bruce said:
Hello! I am not a DM/GM, nor have I played much of tabletop RPGs (and what I did was Warhammer Fantasy years ago), so my input will be limited. I however hope that my first response will lead to more from other forumites.

First, I do respect ingenuity that comes with creating such a dice. Even if an idea or execution won't turn out to be practical, it's still neat to make it and find out. As I said, I am neither a GM nor have played tabletop, so after a respect for your creativity, my next reaction to your dice was: "is d1000 even practical"? Because while it's true that you can do much of what you've written down, in practice, I imagine it would be a lot of additional work work for GM/DM to prepare event tables, loot tables etc. for a session using d1000.

After that, my next thought was "less is more". Basically, I think a number creep isn't actually a good thing. Working on huge numbers in any game, inevitably leads to invidual numeric values to matter less. For instance, if you are operating a d20 in dungeon and dragons, then +1 to your saving throws or skill check does make a visible difference. You feel that. In d100, 1 point of difference in anything won't matter as much. And with d1000, it's even less. I don't think that working with big numbers for its own sake is necessary a strength. In videogames in particular, I think number creep is used to deliver a cheap dopamine shots, rather than provide a compelling game design.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I actually think you raise very good points.

I completely agree that a d1000 would become impractical if someone tried to use it constantly for core gameplay mechanics. Preparing huge tables for regular sessions could easily become overwhelming, and I also agree that extremely large number systems can reduce the emotional impact of small modifiers.

What fascinated me most during the project was less “bigger numbers are automatically better” and more the psychological effect the object itself seems to create. People immediately start imagining impossibly rare events, absurd outcomes, cosmic-scale randomness, and things that feel almost mythical compared to traditional dice.

So for me it became interesting more as an occasional “chaos engine” or special-event tool rather than a standard gameplay die.

I also find it fascinating that even people who would never actually use a d1000 in a campaign still seem drawn to the idea of physically rolling one.
 
MiloMechanics

MiloMechanics

Habitué
Messages
5
Skatan said:
That's a very cool concept and I am in awe of your ingenuity. I'm neither DM nor player of tabletops so can't comment on that unfortunately. But yeah, big numbers go boom so why the hell not?
Click to expand...
Thank you! Honestly, a large part of the fun has been watching people's reactions to it. Even experienced gamers tend to stop for a second when they realize it's an actual physical d1000.

There’s something inherently entertaining about ridiculous levels of randomness, even if it’s not always practical.
 
JustKneller

JustKneller

Habitué
Messages
880
As a GM, player, and consummate homebrewer, I have two opposite reactions to this.

1) Great job pushing the boundaries and creating a new thing.
2) Dear god, why? 😁

and a bonus reaction...I already have a d1000, I just use three ten sided dice of different colors. Or, you could make a d1000 by creating a d10 that goes in 100 increments (most gamers already have the tens and ones)

I think the less people understand statistics, the more they will go down a rabbit hole of possibilities. I have a totally different mindset though. I have this hypothetical concept called the "who gives a shit spectrum". This is essentially the range of probability where people will actually be emotionally invested in the roll of the dice. If a GM tells me that only a roll of 20 on a d20 is a pass on a task, I'll roll the dice (if I have to), but I won't give a shit. But, everyone is different. I know some gamers that will pin their hopes and dreams on a 1:20 roll. God help them should they ever go to a casino.

I haven't actually done any empirical research, but I would expect that the who gives a shit spectrum as a strong central tendency. I have two hypotheses here. One is that the mean would land at 50%. Nothing is more dramatic than a coin toss, right? The other is that the mean is around 65%, but only because 8 is WotC D&D's magic number. WotC D&D is a bit of a wank, though. But there could be truth in it. I actually favor d6s whenever possible (my B/X D&D homebrew only uses d20 and d6s and leans into x-in-6 rolls outside of combat). A 4+ roll is tense, but a 3+ roll is more insidious. The odds are in your favor so you might build some confidence. However, there's a real chance of failure so, when it happens, it hits a little harder.

All this is to say that I think the slivers of chance in a d1000 would generally be too small to feel for most folks. If I have a 1:1000 or 999:1000 chance on something, I'm wondering why I even have to roll the dice. Also, the math involved for significant chunks (I have a +342 to hit, with a +61 sword, but a -83 for uneven ground) would be excruciating. I, personally, would never use a d1000. God forbid I had to come up with a list of 1000 somethings. I don't find "oversized" probability systems to be interesting. I'm not sure what "oversized" means, here. Maybe atomized? Making the most of a d1000 would require a lot of systemic bureaucracy and kill immersion in a game. But, I'm not a big dice kind of person. Pretty much the only game for which I use anything other than a d6 is OSR D&D, and I would boil that down to just d6 rolls if possible (and practical).

But, I've known a fair number of gamers who would buy a die like that just to say they have it (though never use it).
 
MiloMechanics

MiloMechanics

Habitué
Messages
5
JustKneller said:
As a GM, player, and consummate homebrewer, I have two opposite reactions to this.

1) Great job pushing the boundaries and creating a new thing.
2) Dear god, why? 😁

and a bonus reaction...I already have a d1000, I just use three ten sided dice of different colors. Or, you could make a d1000 by creating a d10 that goes in 100 increments (most gamers already have the tens and ones)

I think the less people understand statistics, the more they will go down a rabbit hole of possibilities. I have a totally different mindset though. I have this hypothetical concept called the "who gives a shit spectrum". This is essentially the range of probability where people will actually be emotionally invested in the roll of the dice. If a GM tells me that only a roll of 20 on a d20 is a pass on a task, I'll roll the dice (if I have to), but I won't give a shit. But, everyone is different. I know some gamers that will pin their hopes and dreams on a 1:20 roll. God help them should they ever go to a casino.

I haven't actually done any empirical research, but I would expect that the who gives a shit spectrum as a strong central tendency. I have two hypotheses here. One is that the mean would land at 50%. Nothing is more dramatic than a coin toss, right? The other is that the mean is around 65%, but only because 8 is WotC D&D's magic number. WotC D&D is a bit of a wank, though. But there could be truth in it. I actually favor d6s whenever possible (my B/X D&D homebrew only uses d20 and d6s and leans into x-in-6 rolls outside of combat). A 4+ roll is tense, but a 3+ roll is more insidious. The odds are in your favor so you might build some confidence. However, there's a real chance of failure so, when it happens, it hits a little harder.

All this is to say that I think the slivers of chance in a d1000 would generally be too small to feel for most folks. If I have a 1:1000 or 999:1000 chance on something, I'm wondering why I even have to roll the dice. Also, the math involved for significant chunks (I have a +342 to hit, with a +61 sword, but a -83 for uneven ground) would be excruciating. I, personally, would never use a d1000. God forbid I had to come up with a list of 1000 somethings. I don't find "oversized" probability systems to be interesting. I'm not sure what "oversized" means, here. Maybe atomized? Making the most of a d1000 would require a lot of systemic bureaucracy and kill immersion in a game. But, I'm not a big dice kind of person. Pretty much the only game for which I use anything other than a d6 is OSR D&D, and I would boil that down to just d6 rolls if possible (and practical).

But, I've known a fair number of gamers who would buy a die like that just to say they have it (though never use it).
Click to expand...
This was a fantastic read and honestly touches on a lot of the same thoughts I had while developing the d1000.

I completely agree that, from a pure gameplay efficiency perspective, a d1000 is difficult to justify as a core mechanic. At some point the probabilities become so atomized that many outcomes stop feeling emotionally meaningful, and as you said, people naturally drift into a “why are we even rolling?” mindset.

Your “who gives a shit spectrum” idea is genuinely fascinating and I think there’s probably a lot of truth to it. I suspect emotional investment in randomness has less to do with mathematical scale and more to do with human perception of tension, possibility, and agency. A coin toss can absolutely feel more dramatic than a 1-in-1000 event because the brain can emotionally process it in real time.

What surprised me most about the d1000 project was that the object itself almost became psychological rather than practical. The moment people see it, they start imagining absurdly rare prophecies, catastrophic world events, cosmic encounters, impossible loot tables, and “one chance in a thousand” moments. It seems to trigger imagination before practicality.

And yes, you’re absolutely right that many gamers would probably want one more as a curiosity or conversation piece than as a frequently used gameplay tool. Honestly, I think that realization became part of the appeal for me too.

Also, I had to laugh at “Dear god, why?” because that was honestly part of my own internal design process while making it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom