I didn't see a poll option so i'll just ask what your favorite dice system is:

d100/ percentile dice system.
d20.
3d6.
2d6.
Other.

I like percentile personally. Used it in dark heresy, call of cthulhu and if i get some players i'll use it in Eclipse Phase.

2D, Boon, and Bane rolls from Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition.

Depends what I'm trying to accomplish, but I guess your're asking about a "system" or "core mechanism" approach.

I tend to think about probabilities in terms of percentages, so d100 is a natural fit. In practice, a d20 isn't far removed from that: the % to d20 conversion is trivial if you're only worried about 5% increments.

While I like multiple dice (e.g., multiple d6s) for certain things, I don't find such systems as easy to reason about and calculate mentally. That is, if I start off thinking "this PC should have about an X% chance of success in these circumstances" it's more difficult to calculate appropriate modifiers or target numbers if the core mechanism is multiple d6s.

I'm a simple man with simple needs:
d20 to hit
Buckets of Dice for damage

But I like the simpler d6 dice pool systems too.

I'm more concerned that the dice used are a good fit for the mechanics of the system than a particular set.  Particularly, the scale of the modifiers should fit the dice used for the the mechanic and the system. 

I have a minor preference for a relatively flat curve, which would make something like 2d10 or 2d12 a good fit in theory.  In practice, they tend to occupy a middle ground that makes them an odd system fit.  Games tend to be focused on keeping it simple and moving, which often makes something like 2d6 or 1d20 a good choice, or they tend to be focused on more details and take enough advantage of what the dice bring to use more options or granularity than you get with something like 2d10.

I've soured a bit on dice pools in general and have never much cared for roll under systems (simple an aesthetic preference), but I've played games with pools and enjoyed d100 roll under enough to do them again.  I think I would prefer Hero System or GURPS with 2d10, but I'm am not as interested in generic systems as I once was.

 

I have a favorable view of dice pools (generally d6s).

It depends on feel that's being targeted:

Pulpy Adventures - D6 System style pools (uses an exploding die and players can buy more dice with meta-currency)

Anything else - D100 or grudgingly D20.  I prefer the extra 5% spread to make ties more rare in contests.

D6 dice pools feel the most elegant to me.

Artesia used a variant based on Fuzion, that I liked: roll d10 add stat and skill, hit target number or above. Stats and skills are flexible combinations where the player can argue why a certain skill and stat should be used in a given situation.

Don't really have a favorite, just a bunch of ones I like.

Percentile, D20, and Dice Pool (D6 and D10)

For me it really comes down to what's best for the genre.

D20's work well for a combat heavy system with multi-turn resolutions because the multiple rolls will create their own bell curves, but the odds of individual rolls are easy for even casuals to grok.

When I want more detail on not just whether but how a check succeeds I find that a "count successes" dice pool system with variable difficulties (ex. OWoD) to be a better fit.

Probably a better approach for me in this discussion is what I don't like which can basically be summed up as "roll-under stat" systems of any type. There's just something about how variable difficulty and opposed tests are often counter intuitive (ex. penalties are added to your roll, bonuses are subtracted) or more complex than necessary (ex. opposed tests are who is closest without going over).

Similarly, even in roll high systems I'm less than enamored with systems that apply modifiers to your target number instead of just adding to your roll because, again, they tend to be counterintuitive; i.e. something that hinders you is listed as a +X, while something that helps you is a -X.

While they're perfectly valid approaches, many of them feel like they're more convoluted than they need to be and are often the way they are more because they were adapted from an older system where such modifiers weren't as commonplace as they are in the system where they're being used now.

For me, being able to handle basic and opposed tests by nearly the same methods is a plus for me in system design. D20 vs. TN where the TN can be another d20 test result for an opposed check is something in line with my preferences, as is, an opposed test canceling successes in a dice pool system.

Likewise, if I had to pick just one approach, I'd prefer opposed tests to single rolls vs. a static target number. Opposed tests push the results towards a bell curve even if each side is only rolling one die which would be a flat distribution otherwise.

Also, if I had to dice pools vs. a standard XdY+Z roll, I'd go the latter route pretty much every time just because I'm not a fan of buckets of dice, particularly in any system where the GM has to make such a roll for every opponent in a conflict situation (its nice to handle saving throws for a dozen mooks in D&D because each maps to a single die you can roll using a handful... when each mook needs 6-10 dice each that starts to lag quickly).

I'm also something of a fan of systems where a margin of success can easily be calculated as margins can do a lot for determining outcomes. It doesn't work as well for D&D or other systems with flat hit distributions, but margin as damage dealt is one of the things I'd want in a hypothetical "perfect" system.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 17, 2021, 11:34:42 AM

D20's work well for a combat heavy system with multi-turn resolutions because the multiple rolls will create their own bell curves, but the odds of individual rolls are easy for even casuals to grok.

Just a casual here...can you explain to me how linear d20 results turn into bell curves because you have multiple rounds?

EDIT: I should add, the reason I ask is I always assumed d20 remained linear.

Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 12:52:12 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 17, 2021, 11:34:42 AM

D20's work well for a combat heavy system with multi-turn resolutions because the multiple rolls will create their own bell curves, but the odds of individual rolls are easy for even casuals to grok.

Just a casual here...can you explain to me how linear d20 results turn into bell curves because you have multiple rounds?

EDIT: I should add, the reason I ask is I always assumed d20 remained linear.

I was just assuming he meant that if resolution requires many rolls, the overall results will tend to cluster toward the middle, just like a single roll with many dice. Not sure of the details of how the rolls are used though.

Quote from: Trond on May 17, 2021, 01:43:38 PM
I was just assuming he meant that if resolution requires many rolls, the overall results will tend to cluster toward the middle, just like a single roll with many dice. Not sure of the details of how the rolls are used though.

I do not think the results cluster. The average of a d20 may be 10.5, but a 12 is not more likely than an 18, irrespective the number of combat rounds.

Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: Trond on May 17, 2021, 01:43:38 PM
I was just assuming he meant that if resolution requires many rolls, the overall results will tend to cluster toward the middle, just like a single roll with many dice. Not sure of the details of how the rolls are used though.

I do not think the results cluster. The average of a d20 may be 10.5, but a 12 is not more likely than an 18, irrespective the number of combat rounds.

It's the overall results of the battle that go on curve, because of the combination of many d20 attacks and typically multiple hits needed to overcome hit points.  Which is why you don't get the effect nearly so much in low-level D&D.  Or course, magic and other effects complicates it too (e.g. "Save or Die" effects).