Going Up, Going Down: Incrementing Die Sizes for Information Density

I've occasionally seen people online present six related random tables, with each table tied to one of the classic polyhedral die sizes. For example, rolling a d4 to choose a location, then a d6 to determine what’s currently happening there, then a d8 to decide what monster is present, and so on.

I don’t know where this idea originated, or if there’s a proper name for it, or how far back it goes. It’s just a nice execution, because it’s satisfying to roll a fistful of dice all at once and then discern the results. It’s a fun prep technique, but a little too time-consuming for use at the table. Still, there’s something compelling about using all six of the main dice in one throw. What kind of similar ideas would be more useful at the table?

Picture a single random table, numbered 1-20. The entries near the bottom of the table are positive (or at least neutral) for the PCs, while the ones at the top are increasingly negative. For example, in a dungeon, a result of 1 could be something simple like a torch burning out, while 20 would indicate a random encounter with the most dangerous monster in the joint.

When you first roll on this table, use a d4. Interpret the outcome of the result, then cross it out. If you roll that same result a second time, nothing happens, but you permanently increase the die size to d6. Continue in the same fashion, increasing the die size to d8 and so on whenever you hit a previously rolled result that has already been crossed out. If you reach the d20 and can no longer increment upwards, treat re-rolls of previously rolled monsters as the nearest as-yet-unrolled result (and cross it out afterward). 

Rolling Downhill

The above method builds in a time delay for the really tough stuff. The increasing die means that the worst danger from the deepest part of the dungeon won’t show up while exploring the first room; but the incrementing dice and crossed-out possibilities mean that the more time the party spends in the dungeon, the more certain it is that those events will eventually happen.

What if we want at least a chance that the biggest dangers show up early? We can turn this around and put the bad stuff at the low end of the number range, and the good (or at least relatively "less-bad") results at the top.

Start with the d20, and roll as usual on the 1-20 table, crossing off results as you go. When you reroll a previously rolled result, switch to the next-smallest die. So the DM could roll 6, 11, 3, 20, 11, crossing out each of those results. When the second 11 is rolled, the die increments down to the d12; results 13 and above are now out of range.

This one will run on a much more aggressive clock, and after a handful of encounter rolls, the PCs will quickly get into hot water. For some counterplay (and a chance to still use numbers that have fallen out of the shrinking die range) give the players a way to release steam from the dungeon. Say that every favorable negotiation or parley with an NPC or a faction can increment the die back up by a level. Or exploring a certain number of rooms. Whatever connects to the intended gameplay loop and provides some motivation to the PCs.

There’s nothing special about either of these systems that makes them “better” than conventional random event or dungeon exploration tables. They merely take advantage of the natural tactile appeal of the varying sizes of polyhedral dice. And for in-person games, the d20 (in the first system) or the d4 (in the second system) is a powerful sign to the players that they are in as much danger as the dungeon has to offer.