> and the other fancier dice didn't pan out in practice.

For wargaming I think what happened is that “special dice and more detailed simulation” moved into “computerized simulation” (which allows a lot more depth with less player-managed overhead) in the late 1980s through the 1990s, and most of that whole end of the hobby left the tabletop world.

Yeah, although the more complex simulations have largely have largely faded away from the computer space as well. (With a few exceptions.) And very niche board games are probably more viable than very niche computer games. Modder communities for some old computer games notwithstanding.

Personally, I confess to finding complex simulations (whether of the board game or flight/combat genres) more appealing in theory than I do in practice.

They're also a pain to make. I work on complex simulations for a living, and the number of parameters and data sets you need to get good results is staggering.

If you end up just going "We think it's about 100 meters" that's a lot of effort for not much reward.

Agreed. In support of this theory, do note the tabletop world (which still exists and apparently makes money. See: Games Workshop and its many current competitors) is moving away from complex simulations, and striving to streamline and simplify the gaming experience, within reason.

D6 are also common today because they help simplify the user experience. Charts, tables, and fancy dice get in the way of learning the rules and having fun for the average person. Most people need to perceive a low barrier to entry and don't want to invest in learning a large ruleset.

Games you mention are still made, but they're a niche product in a niche market.

Needle moving growth for the tabletop industry comes from introducing new people to the hobby, not from selling another Space Marine model to an existing gamer. It's difficult to build a sustainable tabletop business without one or two big hits (ex: Days of Wonder's "Ticket to Ride"). It's even harder for companies that sacrifice usability for realistic simulations.

Playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure the D6 provides a simpler user experience. Why is rolling a D6 to determine whether you kill something in an RPG or wargame "easier" than rolling a D10? A single D10 seems more intuitive to me than a single D6 (that is, a score "from 1 to 10" seems more natural than "from 1 to 6").

An argument could be made that the D6 is more readily available, but this is probably irrelevant in the context of miniature gaming: miniatures themselves are NOT "readily available", and you can get the specialized dice from the same store you get your miniatures!

The difficulty is when you have to go hunting for the right die to use, and mistake, say, the d12 for the d20. Or get confused that, for d4s, you have to read the downward face instead of the top face.

That being said, I fell deeply in love with the classic D&D polyhedra the moment I first saw them. Platonic solids are cool! They're delightfully arcane and geeky. They complement each other in a set. I wish the weird d8 and d12 throws came up more often.

Perhaps there's a lesson here for UX in general: sometimes there's a tradeoff between being _simple_ and being _interesting_, and (particularly in the world of games) it's a tradeoff worth taking seriously.

I thought with d4s you read the value at the point, not the face on the bottom? Maybe my dice are different.

I prefer the d12 to the d6 for generic rolls, as it allows for the least number of sides with the most human-usable fractions (25/50/75%, 33/66%, and "a little less than 10%").

Well, wargames and RPGs are so complex enough already that surely mistaking the type of die is the least of a player's problems. And D6 used to require complex table lookups (which current tabletop game design seems to eschew), so not sure it was easier to begin with... just the most common shape of dice.

I share your love of D&D dice :)