I am a big fan of 3d6, but it makes higher DC rolls much harder.
I prefer 1d20. Faster, no adding, and I like the linear probabilities over having a curve since it makes it easier to design mechanics around it.
Now, this goes for things like “succeed or fail”, where there are two, three, or four options. You have 65% chance of breaking the door and 35% of not being able to. Simple. Clear. In 5% chunks. Any questions? Of course not.
For things like encounter tables or damage rolls, however, that’s where curves or truncated V’s can shine. I like d12+d8.
curves or truncated V’s can shine
Interesting, what system uses d12+d8?
It’s not for success rolls, it’s for rolling on tables; there have been many d8+d12 tables in D&D over the years.
For example, encounter tables like “4: Brigands. 5: Wolves.” etc.
I don’t play d&d, but the systems i prefer generally use a 2 dice curve and have a higher emphasis on players guiding the narrative by way of some kind of point system. The farther you get from two dice the more you might as well not have any, since you start curving so heavily to average. Imo.
Interesting, never played a 2d system. Do you have any examples?I can’t believe I said that, of course I have played 2d systems. I used to run Traveller back in the 80’s. I was thinking of Modiphius systems like Dune. I don’t know what those mechanics are like.
So the Mophidius 2d20 system works like this. You have two numbers (and how you get those two numbers vary from game to game, for example it can be that each skill inherently has two stats like expertise and focus, or it can be that you get one number from the skill value and the other from a trait matching system). You roll some d20s, two by default but you can get more (for example, in Star Trek, you get more by using teamwork). Each die under one of the numbers is a success, each die under the other number is two successes.
So it’s for all the disadvantages of a typical success-counter like Shadowrun, Vampire, Burning Wheel or MY0 (wonky and opaque probabilities, lots of separate dice to look at) and all the disadvantages of something like D&D, where the numbers you’re dealing with are pretty big.
It is fiddly and cumbersome. Not my jam. The advantage is that you get a lot of “inputs” (single success threshold, double success threshold, and amount of dice) and “outputs” (successes and momentum), which is good is you’re making the sort of proprietary “gamist” crunch that sells books. (Not that those games can’t be fun.)
Well, if I want to have the ability to roll a number with the range 1-20 instead of 3-18, the choice is obvious.
But in terms of proficiencies and reliability, I prefer the consistency of 3d6 for designing challenges and combat. I also often give weapons that deal 2d4 damage instead of 1d8 with the same rationale.
But as with all things, the success depends on the implementation.
@sgtnasty I am not a fan of how ‘swingy’ d20 can be. For things like combat when there will be lots of rolls, it’s fine. It averages out. But if you get to use your one skill only once per session, it really sucks.
@sgtnasty Mutants & Masterminds 2e uses d20. However, there are several Feats that mitigate ‘one bad roll’ so I find it tolerable.
Wish I could do a poll on Lemmy…
