For you what is the best/favorite/funniest dice mechanic you have ever played?
for me is d6 exploding dice
posting some dice meanwhile
>>44407276
>buy lb of dice
>stolen out of car along with character sheets
>who the fuck steals dice and character sheets?
>be poor as fuck
>bum dice off GM as usual
>christmas rolls around
>bout to ask senpai for a single set
>nothing insanely fancy
>maybe some pewters
>get sweet ass expensive shit in a gift exchange
>shit I have no use for
>diceless loser
>now I have spent almost 30 bucks buying cheap ass packs of die for upcoming game I'm running with new players
>>44407663
im sorry for that, maybe the thief was a diceless loser too
Chance to do stuff is from 0 to 100
If not exact 0 or 100
Roll first d10 (0 to 9) dice, if less than first digit of the chance you win
If more than first digit of chance you lose
If equal to first digit of chance roll again the dice to find second digit.
If less than second digit....
rolling stop when you are sure you know you already won.
This means you will roll 2 dices only 1 in 10 times and 3 dices only 1 in 100 times and this goes on, NO MATTER HOW THE CHANCE IS, even if 67.463545736537%
>>44407921
To try to explain better
Imagine 50% of chance
Roll 1d10-1 (0 to 9) on anydice
Rolled a 9, this means I fail.
Now imagine there is now imagine the chance is 1 in 3, thats is 66.666666666.....
I rolled a 6 and so cant be sure if I pass or not (this because the roll can be any number between 60 and 69.9999999999999999999..).
I roll a 3 now and so have a 63, thats less than 66.6666666666, so I pass the test and need no extra rolls
>>44407921
>>44407997
If your idea solves anything, people wouldnt coplain about fatal 1 in a 10000000 rolls
>>44407921
>>44407997
so roll under?
>>44407921
>>44407997
Or you could, you know, just roll both dice at the same time, doesn't take any longer than just rolling the first digit and takes less time if the first digit is in the possible failure range.
>>44407921
>>44407997
Isn't that mathematically the same as 1d100 roll under, except you could have arbitrary chances instead of simple percentages?
...I guess that's good, but why would you need a general system that allows for the .00001% chance when d100 is often much simpler and sufficiently fine-grained for most applications? They can't turn up often enough to warrant designing the system around it.
