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).
Quote from: Trond on May 17, 2021, 01:43:38 PM
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.
Pretty much what Trond said. If you view an overall battle as a single task, then unless the contest is over with a single die roll the results over the course of a battle and adventuring day will average out based on your level of ability.
Basically, you will have a bell-curved result of "damage dealt per round vs. a given AC" in D&D.
For example, you have a +5 to hit and deal 1d8+3 damage vs. some orcs with AC 17 and 12 hp each. Now, you could get lucky and roll a 11+ for every attack or get a critical that deals 12+ damage in single swing... or you could whiff three times in a row or roll 1's on damage die and have to whack one of the orcs three times to make them drop.
The results of each swing will vary greatly in outcome, but after a few dozen orcs you'll find that your overall results are that you need about four attacks to dispatch an orc.
Similarly, how often the orcs hit you and how much damage they do per hit will, over the course of many encounters, average out such that you can guess about how much damage you'll have taken after a fight with X orcs.
There will be variances... sometimes your dice are on fire and you drop them in two-thirds of the usual time... sometimes they're cold and it takes you twice as long as you'd think (meaning you take more damage in the meantime)... but overall you'll get a fairly bell-curved distribution of results for your combats with those orcs.
And that's why D&D's combat system, despite using a 1d20 instead of say, 3d6 that produces a bell curve all on its own, still feels okay and like its not a completely random distribution outcomes. Any one individual attack is, but you generally need many attacks to resolve things so overall the result is a bell curve distribution.
Okay, I understand what all of you are saying, but you are putting a lot of qualifiers in there. At the end of the day a d20 is not going to give you a bell distribution. Ever. The results of your rolls in a given evening do not cluster around 10/11 with a d20 like they would with 3d6.
1d20 is a linear distribution, 2d6 is a triangle distribution, and 3d6 is a really poor bell.
You can roll a d20 for one million straight rounds of combat (and yes some nights it feels like that) and you will have roughly the same number of 5s and 12s. If you roll a 3d6 one million times you will not have anywhere near the same number of 5s and 12s.
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
Depends on the context. I like rolling more than once die at a time, it just feels more fun even if it's just two.
At the same time, it's mentally easier to roll a single die and repeat that. Rolling more dice means more mental calculations (generally).
A single die is also easier to calculate probabilities for, generally a good thing.
Personally I think a 2d10 sum + meet or beat target number strikes a good balance between all the concerns, although 3d6 is also pretty good and doesn't require special dice.
Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
The overall experience of success / failure gives you a bell curve.
I'd argue, however, that most combats don't go more than 4 rounds (at least, not in any meaningful sense). That's a poor sample for a curve.
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
The overall experience of success / failure gives you a bell curve.
I'd argue, however, that most combats don't go more than 4 rounds (at least, not in any meaningful sense). That's a poor sample for a curve.
If 3d6 approximates a bell curve, then so does 4d20.
Anything with a target number to roll equal to or over. I'm not a fan of roll-under systems, and dice pools are fine, but they tend to add complexity to the dice rolling itself rather than to the characters.
The system I'm working on has various dice used depending upon the weapon/ability being used. I like it because it gives different abilities different vibes & accuracies without any extra rules. (Ex: most swords are 3d6, while axes are 2d8 but do more damage / assault rifles are 2d10, while rocket launchers are a less accurate 2d6 along with more range penalties - but they do higher scaled damage to be a threat to mecha etc.)
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
The overall experience of success / failure gives you a bell curve.
I'd argue, however, that most combats don't go more than 4 rounds (at least, not in any meaningful sense). That's a poor sample for a curve.
The bell curve of 3d6/2d10/whatever doesn't really end up being different than a linear roll on any single roll if it's just hit/miss. But it can have an impact if the game has many situational modifiers that players can adjust tactically - such as range/cover/etc. If so - then gaining a bonus becomes more valuable around the top of the bell curve, while if you're already hitting on a 7+ with 3d6, it's hardly worth spending actions or resources for additional accuracy. With a 1d20, getting a +4 to accuracy when you're currently hitting on a 7+ is just as valuable as if you were hitting on a 15+.
But if there are no consistent ways for the players to gain such bonuses (or add defenses) on the fly, then you don't really get much out of bell curves vs. linear rolling.
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 07:43:24 PM
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
The overall experience of success / failure gives you a bell curve.
I'd argue, however, that most combats don't go more than 4 rounds (at least, not in any meaningful sense). That's a poor sample for a curve.
If 3d6 approximates a bell curve, then so does 4d20.
The concept of the curve applies to the mathematical distribution of numbers. When we talk about the aggregate result of multiple unique rolls, we're generally talking about pass/fail. These aren't conceptually the same thing even though the numbers themselves often collapse down to pass/fail. As Charon's Little Helper points out, it can significantly impact value of modifiers to rolls.
My favorite dice system of all time is used in Cortex Classic, used in the Serenity and Battlestar Galactica games. Atts usually range d4 to d12, and skills usually range d4 to d12. The handling time is low, and it uses polyhedrals for something besides just damage.
(No, this is not the same as Savage Worlds, everyone asks that. No, this is not the system used in Leverage, Smallville, or Marvel. That's Cortex Plus, which I know little about.)
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 07:43:24 PM
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
The overall experience of success / failure gives you a bell curve.
I'd argue, however, that most combats don't go more than 4 rounds (at least, not in any meaningful sense). That's a poor sample for a curve.
If 3d6 approximates a bell curve, then so does 4d20.
is there actually a 4d20 system out there? :o
I don't think I can say that I have a favorite. Different dice systems do different things.
I like d100. The probabilities are read directly and easy to understand and it easily allows for critical (or fumble) probabilities that are less than 5%.
I like 2D6 + trait/skill like Barbarians of Lemuria. It is simple and fast to roll and it works very well with a roll an extra die and take the best (worst) two for an bonus (penalty) situation. Downsides, the probabilities are cannot be directly read nor simply calculated (some very elementary probability is needed) and the range for character progression is fairly limited. Of course one can use 2D10 instead of 2D6 to expand the range.
I like d20 with a roll under blackjack because it is a neat mechanic for handling opposed rolls. But d20 systems don't easily allow for critical and fumble probabilities of < 5% and the probabilities can't be directly read (though the calculation is elementary).
I like D6 systems like the old WEG Star Wars D6 system. It's simple to figure out what to roll. Difficulty levels are easy to work with and the system is designed for and works well for pulp adventure. And I like rolling buckets of dice. On the down side, probabilities are neither direct nor easily calculated, especially if the Wild Die is used.
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 10:40:57 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 07:43:24 PM
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 17, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
That said, what I really find interesting is your point about how it feels. I think there is something to that. There might also be something to the highs and lows one experiences with a long linear d20 versus a small triangular 2d6 or tall bell 3d6.
The overall experience of success / failure gives you a bell curve.
I'd argue, however, that most combats don't go more than 4 rounds (at least, not in any meaningful sense). That's a poor sample for a curve.
If 3d6 approximates a bell curve, then so does 4d20.
The concept of the curve applies to the mathematical distribution of numbers. When we talk about the aggregate result of multiple unique rolls, we're generally talking about pass/fail. These aren't conceptually the same thing even though the numbers themselves often collapse down to pass/fail. As Charon's Little Helper points out, it can significantly impact value of modifiers to rolls.
Except we're not talking about unique rolls. We're talking about to hit rolls. They're not independent, they have a cumulative effect. And thus the end results approximates a bell curve.
Quote from: Zelen on May 17, 2021, 07:39:14 PM
Depends on the context. I like rolling more than once die at a time, it just feels more fun even if it's just two.
At the same time, it's mentally easier to roll a single die and repeat that. Rolling more dice means more mental calculations (generally).
A single die is also easier to calculate probabilities for, generally a good thing.
Personally I think a 2d10 sum + meet or beat target number strikes a good balance between all the concerns, although 3d6 is also pretty good and doesn't require special dice.
Yeah. 2d10 for me too. You get to stay in the same range as d20 games, which is familiar territory.
I like the distribution towards the middle without it being to bell-curve like the 3d6.
I also added explosive dice on rolling doubles except double 1's (which is a fumble) so you always at least have small chance to succeed with difficulties that are to high otherwise.
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 11:23:15 PM
Except we're not talking about unique rolls. We're talking about to hit rolls. They're not independent, they have a cumulative effect. And thus the end results approximates a bell curve.
Not really. To-hit rolls are generally just hit or miss (potentially with a crit option). Only two options - not 20, even if rolled on a 1d20. And across just 4-5 swings, there just aren't enough rolls to average out for a binary option.
And that doesn't even include that rolling hits early in the combat is more valuable - as it means you will likely take down foe(s) earlier and therefore take less damage.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on May 18, 2021, 08:04:31 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 11:23:15 PM
Except we're not talking about unique rolls. We're talking about to hit rolls. They're not independent, they have a cumulative effect. And thus the end results approximates a bell curve.
Not really. To-hit rolls are generally just hit or miss (potentially with a crit option). Only two options - not 20, even if rolled on a 1d20. And across just 4-5 swings, there just aren't enough rolls to average out for a binary option.
And that doesn't even include that rolling hits early in the combat is more valuable - as it means you will likely take down foe(s) earlier and therefore take less damage.
It's true to hit rolls are binary, but they're also associated with damage rolls. And it's also true that successful hits are more important early in the combat (Lanchester's Laws; always reduce the number of enemies first), but that relates to other rolls as well, like surprise and initiative. The net effect over the course of a combat or adventure is what's important.
DW's 2d6 system, and (EDIT) FFG's Star Wars' Dice system for sure- I prefer a system that give more than simple pass/fail.
I also like Fantasy Age's 3d6/stunts.
BRP/RQ's D100 is still probably the cleanest most concise system that not only works for hardcore gamers, but is also easiest to explain to new people- "you have skills, and you have a X chance of succeeding". People have a harder time finding the skill they need on the character sheet than learning how the dice mechanics work. Perrin, et al = game design genius.
Quote from: The Thing on May 17, 2021, 12:26:31 AM
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.
I've raised the point that while old school D&D is thought of as not having a unified mechanic, that it really does have just two mechanics. 1) Assign a probability and dice against it. 2) Roll on a matrix.
If I had to stick to just one die type, I prefer percentile for dicing against a probability since it just calls for articulating a percent chance of something happening. For checking a matrix, it doesn't matter too much, except if I will ultimately be using arithmetic as a shortcut in lieu of actually doing a table look up, I would prefer d20 as a good balance between graininess and easy maths.
Quote from: Pat on May 18, 2021, 08:11:21 AM
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on May 18, 2021, 08:04:31 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 11:23:15 PM
Except we're not talking about unique rolls. We're talking about to hit rolls. They're not independent, they have a cumulative effect. And thus the end results approximates a bell curve.
Not really. To-hit rolls are generally just hit or miss (potentially with a crit option). Only two options - not 20, even if rolled on a 1d20. And across just 4-5 swings, there just aren't enough rolls to average out for a binary option.
And that doesn't even include that rolling hits early in the combat is more valuable - as it means you will likely take down foe(s) earlier and therefore take less damage.
It's true to hit rolls are binary, but they're also associated with damage rolls. And it's also true that successful hits are more important early in the combat (Lanchester's Laws; always reduce the number of enemies first), but that relates to other rolls as well, like surprise and initiative. The net effect over the course of a combat or adventure is what's important.
That only matters a lot if any given smaller chunk of rolls isn't potentially deadly. Law of large numbers doesn't apply if you don't survive long enough.
Now - I'm not saying that that's a bad thing - just that it's not a bell curve. There's an argument against bell curve - as the randomness allows for more excitement etc.
I'm a pretty big fan of opposed d6 or d12 dice pools, with a success threshold and comparing highest die to opponents highest. This gives you degree of success, which works for damage, but also great for conditions that may be transient and easy to remove, or very difficult to overcome.
It's fairly swingy while giving someone who has an extra die or two a big advantage, which fits how I want superhero fights to go. I usually use d12s when I run Planetary or Cosmic tier games, mostly just because.
Challenges aren't opposed (cause there is no opponent), they just require a number of basic successes to overcome.
This is the basics of how the "unleashed engine" that powers my Simple Superheroes game. I use a variant of it for a "Dungeons Unleashed" campaign I am running now, (d12s but fewer dice usually, and I'm more likely to adjust the success threshold).
Otherwise - d100 is intuitive and Diceless as in Amber is great, am I allowed to say that in a thread discussing dice mechanics :P ?
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on May 18, 2021, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 18, 2021, 08:11:21 AM
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on May 18, 2021, 08:04:31 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 17, 2021, 11:23:15 PM
Except we're not talking about unique rolls. We're talking about to hit rolls. They're not independent, they have a cumulative effect. And thus the end results approximates a bell curve.
Not really. To-hit rolls are generally just hit or miss (potentially with a crit option). Only two options - not 20, even if rolled on a 1d20. And across just 4-5 swings, there just aren't enough rolls to average out for a binary option.
And that doesn't even include that rolling hits early in the combat is more valuable - as it means you will likely take down foe(s) earlier and therefore take less damage.
It's true to hit rolls are binary, but they're also associated with damage rolls. And it's also true that successful hits are more important early in the combat (Lanchester's Laws; always reduce the number of enemies first), but that relates to other rolls as well, like surprise and initiative. The net effect over the course of a combat or adventure is what's important.
That only matters a lot if any given smaller chunk of rolls isn't potentially deadly. Law of large numbers doesn't apply if you don't survive long enough.
Now - I'm not saying that that's a bad thing - just that it's not a bell curve. There's an argument against bell curve - as the randomness allows for more excitement etc.
That's why combat at 1st level is more swingy than combat at 2nd level, but the general principle still applies. Roll a bunch of dice at one time and add them up, and it'll approximate a bell curve. Similarly, roll a bunch of dice with linear distributions at different times, and as long as they're dependent, the dependent results will start to approximate a bell curve. The shape of the curve may be a mess, binary results are more like rolling a d2 even if a d20 is used, and if there is not enough time to make many rolls the curve may be pretty weak, but you're still creating a tendency, and one that more often than not will approximate a bell curve.
This is probably one of the RPG topics I think about most often.
I used to go back and forth; between preferring D20 roll high, and D20 roll under ability scores. Then 2d6 caught my eye, so now I toggle between 3 different possibilities. It's been D20 Roll High here lately.
Dice mechanics; are simply a way to estimate probabilities, and generate random results.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 18, 2021, 10:09:00 AM
I've raised the point that while old school D&D is thought of as not having a unified mechanic, that it really does have just two mechanics. 1) Assign a probability and dice against it. 2) Roll on a matrix.
If I had to stick to just one die type, I prefer percentile for dicing against a probability since it just calls for articulating a percent chance of something happening. For checking a matrix, it doesn't matter too much, except if I will ultimately be using arithmetic as a shortcut in lieu of actually doing a table look up, I would prefer d20 as a good balance between graininess and easy maths.
This is a really good point. And I think it touches on our desire to "hack" or tweak systems. It's not really hacking if your system is 1) and we are just giving a different probability.
Quote from: Thondor on May 25, 2021, 04:00:15 PM
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 18, 2021, 10:09:00 AM
I've raised the point that while old school D&D is thought of as not having a unified mechanic, that it really does have just two mechanics. 1) Assign a probability and dice against it. 2) Roll on a matrix.
This is a really good point. And I think it touches on our desire to "hack" or tweak systems. It's not really hacking if your system is 1) and we are just giving a different probability.
Even more so when you take a step back and look at the numbers AD&D 1E in particular does provide.
Take the 1 in 6 chance to find a secret door is the standard check for non-elves, for example. Doesn't that imply something about how difficult the secret door is to find? Almost all of the #1 type rules in 1E are just like that.
I think this is why I like 1E so much. It feels like it has such a strong, visceral spirit to it. And I think it's because the majority of the "rules" in 1E are actually more like world building. Compare this to, say, GURPS, where the basic mechanic is roll-under your character's skill. While the majority of the rules in GURPS (and the vast majority of RPGs) are obsessively describing the character. 1E is obsessively describing the fantasy world.
But to circle back to your point, yeah, I think most people would agree. Tweaking and/or homebrewing the game world--the monsters, the magic, and so on--is something GMs are expected to do, and is not really considered changing the rules. Well, what if most of the rules of the game really are just defining the game world?
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 18, 2021, 10:09:00 AM
If I had to stick to just one die type, I prefer percentile for dicing against a probability since it just calls for articulating a percent chance of something happening. For checking a matrix, it doesn't matter too much, except if I will ultimately be using arithmetic as a shortcut in lieu of actually doing a table look up, I would prefer d20 as a good balance between graininess and easy maths.
For me, the single die choice would be a d20 because;
A) It's generally "good enough" at emulating a percentage to the degree most people are able to discern a difference (is there a difference between 78% and 80%? Yes. Enough of a difference for a GM adjudicating on the fly to pick either 75 or 80% practically every time? Not that I've seen).
B) it can also "close enough" to all the other dice in terms of odds... d4 and d10 precisely, everything else within 2.5% of actual (1-in-6 or 18+, 2-in-6 or 14+, etc.).
C) if you're using modifiers the numbers are still mostly single/low double digit addition/subtraction so kids have an easier time with it.
D) Easy to roll multiple checks at once without needing to match dice afterwards (required for percentage dice, a 2d10, 3d6 or similar resolution systems).
My second choice would probably be d10 with smaller bonuses... less granular for emulation of other dice (within 5%) but smaller numbers which is useful for C and larger battles under D (which is why I like it for mecha combat games).
There is something to be said for the almost worldwide availability of d6 dice. It is the die of the common man. It keeps things simple, and +1 on a d6 is really meaningful.
I don't think I have one. A single d20 for combat. Other than that I'm not picky. It's in combat where I want the chaos a linear roll delivers. All IMO, of course.