3D Dice Roller
A simple 3D dice roller for quick rolls, board games, and ta
# I built a few tiny random tools and learned that “leaving faster” can be a good sign
I’ve been building a small website called WheelPage.
It’s a simple collection of random tools:
- a spinner
- a 3D dice roller
- a coin flipper
Nothing fancy.
At first, I thought this would be an easy side project. The logic is almost laughably simple.
A spinner picks one item from a list.
A dice roller returns a random number.
A coin flip gives you heads or tails.
But the more I built, the more I realized the hard part wasn’t the random logic.
The hard part was deciding what not to add.
## The dice roller surprised me first
The simplest version took almost no time.
Add a button. Generate a number between 1 and 6. Show the result.
Technically, it worked.
But it didn’t feel like rolling a die.
It felt like a plain random number generator.
That made me add a 3D dice animation. Then I got stuck on something much smaller than expected: the timing.
If the animation was too short, it felt fake.
If it was too long, it felt annoying.
I probably clicked that same button hundreds of times just to adjust the feeling of one small interaction.
That was a funny moment for me.
The random logic was easy. The user experience was not.
## Feature creep happens even in tiny tools
While building the dice roller, I kept thinking of more features:
- multiple dice
- roll history
- sound effects
- D20 and other tabletop dice
- custom colors
- copy result
Every feature made sense on its own.
But the more I looked at it, the more I realized most people don’t open a dice roller because they want to explore a “dice app.”
They open it because they need a die right now.
Maybe they are playing a board game. Maybe they forgot to bring a physical die. Maybe they just need a quick random result.
So the real question became:
Does this feature help the user roll faster, or does it make the page feel heavier?
That question has been useful for the whole project.
## The spinner and coin flipper need different rules
The spinner is naturally heavier.
People need to enter their own options, like food choices, names, tasks, or giveaway entries.
So editing, sorting, shuffling, and history can make sense there.
But the main flow still has to stay obvious:
1. enter options
2. spin
3. get result
The coin flipper is the opposite.
It should be almost frictionless.
It exists for a simple 50/50 decision. You don’t want a complex interface. You just want to stop thinking and let the coin decide.
That taught me something simple but easy to forget:
Small tools may look similar, but they don’t all deserve the same amount of UI.
## I’m starting to rethink “time on site”
This has probably been the biggest mindset shift for me.
I used to think longer sessions were always better.
More time on site. More clicks. More chances to keep the user around.
But for tools like these, I’m not sure that mindset makes sense.
The ideal flow might actually be:
open → use → leave
If someone opens the spinner, gets a result, and leaves in 10 seconds, that might not be a failure.
It might mean the tool worked.
For small utility tools, leaving faster can be a success metric.
## Current state
WheelPage is still very small.
Bing has started bringing in some impressions and clicks. Google is moving slower, which is not surprising for a new site.
I’m not trying to overstate the numbers. It’s still early.
Right now, I’m mostly improving small things:
- mobile button placement
- page speed
- animation timing
- result clarity
- English and Chinese copy
- keeping each tool simple enough to understand instantly
The tools are here if anyone wants to check them out:
- Spinner: Spin the Wheel
- 3D Dice Roller: Dice Roller
- Coin Flipper: Flip a Coin
## What I learned
This project made me respect tiny tools more.
A small tool has very little room to hide bad decisions.
If the main action feels wrong, the whole product feels wrong.
And if you add too much, it stops feeling like a quick tool and starts feeling like another app people have to figure out.
So my current goal is simple:
Help users make a quick decision, then get out of their way.
Curious how other indie hackers think about this.
For utility products, do you optimize for engagement, or for helping users finish faster?
10 Comments
The bit about tweaking the dice animation timing more than the random logic felt very real. That's exactly the kind of detail people notice without realizing why.
I kept picturing someone asking ChatGPT for a quick online dice roller during a board game because nobody can find the physical die. If they land on yours and it feels right immediately they'll probably close the tab 15 seconds later and still remember it the next time.
I'm curious if you've noticed your repeat users behaving almost invisibly because the tool does its job so quickly.
Exactly. That was the strange part for me. If the dice animation feels wrong, people notice it immediately. But if it feels right, nobody thinks about the animation at all. They just roll and move on. That makes these details hard to measure, but still important. On repeat users, it is still early, so I do not want to overread the data yet. Also, because WheelPage is no-login and very lightweight, repeat behavior is kind of invisible by design. I can see some returning visits and search traffic patterns, but not much beyond that. My guess is that people remember the tool in a very situational way. They do not come back to browse. They come back when the same small problem appears again: a board game, a classroom activity, a quick decision, or a random pick. That is why I am starting to think completion matters more than visible engagement for this kind of tool.
I think that's the right way to look at it. Utility tools are remembered by context rather than by brand. People don't wake up thinking "I'll visit WheelPage today"—they remember it when they suddenly need to flip a coin or roll a die.
One thing I'd be curious to measure over time is direct traffic. If people start typing the site name or returning through bookmarks instead of searching every time, that's a strong signal the tool has earned a place in their mental toolkit.
I really like the “context rather than brand” framing.
That feels right for utility tools. People probably do not wake up thinking about WheelPage, but they may remember it when the same small need appears again: a board game, a quick decision, a classroom activity, or a coin flip.
I agree that direct traffic and bookmarks would be a much stronger signal over time. Search can bring the first visit, but coming back directly means the tool has started to live in someone’s mental toolkit.
It is still early, but that is definitely a metric I want to watch.
Exactly, that “context over brand” approach is directly tied to user intent. For utility tools, users rarely search broad terms; they search with a very specific, immediate intent like "roll a d20 for DnD online" or random name picker for classroom.
As a new startup, this is actually your biggest advantage. By deeply researching these specific user intents and optimizing your pages for those exact keywords, you can outrank older, established competitors and pull in a massive amount of highly targeted organic traffic. I’ve put together a few solid ideas and keyword strategies on how you can execute this to beat the current competition.
If you want to dive into the details of how to capture this organic traffic, feel free to reach out to me at mumar @ growwithmumar . online. Would love to share what I have!
How do you even monetize this tho?
Fair question. I should clarify that WheelPage is not making $10k/month right now.
That number was more of an optimistic target/placeholder when I created the product page, not current revenue.
The monetization idea is still pretty simple: grow organic search traffic first, then test lightweight ads or small sponsorship placements later.
For tiny utility tools, monetization only starts to make sense at scale. So right now I’m mostly focused on SEO, speed, and making the tools useful enough that people come back when they need them.
I like the distinction you're making between engagement and completion.
For utility products, success isn't always keeping someone longer. Sometimes it's becoming the fastest path to an outcome, so users leave immediately—and come back the next time they need the same result.
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
The engagement vs completion distinction has been one of the biggest mindset shifts for me while building this.
For many products, more time on site can be a good sign. But for small utility tools, it can also mean the user is confused, waiting, or being pulled into something they did not ask for.
For WheelPage, I’m trying to think more in terms of completion: can someone open the tool, get a result, and leave without friction?
That feels like a better goal for this kind of product than trying to keep people around longer.
I think that's where it gets really interesting.
Your reply made me notice an implication of optimizing for completion that isn't obvious at first, but it can quietly change how people evaluate the product over time.
I don't think I can explain the reasoning properly in a thread without leaving out the important parts.
If you're open to it, what's the best email to reach you on?