Which one is the better dice system?
>>47706543
d10 dice pools
"THE" d20 System is a plain shitty and obsolescent system.
Other than that: There are a lot of ways to make resolution mechanics with D20 and D100 and the D20 can often be functionally identical to the D100.
Frankly, unless you really really really need to use lots of %-Tables with <5% entries, there's no point in using a D100 over a D20. DMs rarely use any steps smaller than 5%, so you might as well shorten the process.
>>47706645
>d10 dice pools
MY NIGGA
>>47706711
>there's no point in using a D100 over a D20
I'd rather use a D100 over the D20, just because it's easier to add more granularity if I need it compared to the D20.
But dice pools are the way to go. Much nicer curves.
>>47706645
>>47706729
>>47706941
dice pools are cancer
3d6
>>47706543
d100 is the best one, because percentage
>>47707000
D20 divided by 2
>>47706543
d20. d100 is more granular than any system needs to be or can actually benefit from.
>>47706941
Yeah, d100 has more granularity, but I've honestly never seen anyone use it to effect. Usually DMs only really go with fiversteps. You can more easily do a table with 100 entries, but honestly, that's often more than anyone needs or wants to write up.
>>47706711
Oh, look, it's the endlessly triggered bitch-anon.
>>47706543
2d6
>>47707575
2d6 is great. Easy to get them, produces a nice curve, gives you a good results range.
Out of OP's choices, I prefer d100s. But only because you can do interesting things with 2d10, like 'flip flopping' the units, having 'doubles' count for something special, etc.
>>47706645
Only when they explode.
>>47707602
>2d6
>nice curve
?????
>>47707745
Bell's curve. Though on picture it actually doesn't seem curve.
He meant that the result is weighted to middle, probably.
>>47707776
The "bell" doesn't appear until 3 dice are rolled, and gets more dominant as the number of dice increases from there.
>>47706543
Pliers or screwdriver: which is the better tool?
>>47708527
Difference between d20 and d100 is minimal, so the comparison would be more like green screwdriver or orange screwdriver, which is better?
>>47706543
>I want more granularity!
d100
>I don't want more granularity
d100
>>47708965
>I don't want more granularity
d20*
>>47708727
80 more sides isn't minimal, it makes everyone have to start thinking on a larger, more annoying order. More like a nice pair of scissors compared to scissors with two sets of handles that interfere with eachother, one right, one left-handed.
Dice pools give you some middle weight, but I'll never comprehend why anyone would want their randomization mechanic to be rigged in a less random way.
They could have easily just designed the base mechanics to be more functional instead.
A D20 die that only goes from 0-9, with each number printed twice.
If we're using physical dice, that is.
>>47708727
Wrong. Sure a flathead can be a philips, but they're both sub-optimal in the wrong application.
>>47708727
Flathead vs. Phillips.
>>47709018
Philips a shit for anything but powered screwdrivers. There are a hundred better fastener shapes than philips or flathead.
>>47706543
If we include critical and fumbles, d100 for me.
5% seems a bit much most of the time, at least when the game has a serious tone.
>>47706543
d20 and D100 are very similar.A better debate would be :
Dice + modifier and try to beat a number set by the GM
VS
Try to aim under your skill score with modifiers set by the GM.
>>47709290
I prefer the latter, but I'm biased because I only play the 40k family of RPGs.
>>47709223
It's an extra mechanic, but you can easily reduce the chance of crits on a d20. If you get maximum, roll a d6; if you get a 6, then you critical, or super critical, or whatever. Sure, this slows things down a bit when you roll a 20, but that's only 1/20 of the time, and overall it's probably still a bit faster than d%, which adds a tiny bit of time to gather, roll and read two dice for every roll.
>>47706543
2D10> D100 for physical dice rolling
D100 is the best thing to use for any system that doesn't need quick and dirty math
>>47706543
They are both equally bad, because they are both flat roll systems. You have no bell curve, so your probability of any roll is always exactly the same as any other roll, regardless of skill level. You join that with the concept of critical failures and critical successes, which almost all d20 or d100 systems have, and you end up with a ludicrous probability chart.
>>47709018
No application needs as much granularity as d100 provides. Whether you have 51% or 53% chance of making a roll is just not a significant difference. Personally I prefer steps of 10% when applying modifiers and whatnot, and don't want to know nor calculate if my character's thumb twiddling skill has increased from 52.7 to 53.1 on level up.
>>47709223
False precision lover?
There really isn't much difference. Systems aren't made or broken by their dice unless you go with something really wacky like d7s, they're made or broken by how dice are interpreted and results calculated.
That being said, I somewhat prefer d100 systems, because most of the time your skills are given as exact percentage chances of success, which I think is nice and tidy.
>>47709545
beg your pardon ?
>>47709741
It's a common term for trying to quantify the exact chance of something in an RPG. "You have a 31% chance of shooting that guy "
It's a false sense of precision.
>>47706543
I'll take something with actual sides over a golfball with stickers on it any day, every day.
>>47709790
too bad he wasn't talking about that
D100 is more precise but I like my dice to stop rolling at some point, saves time.
D20 is the correct choice
>>47710258
>>47710540
>not using 2d10 as a d100
>>47710258
You realize that those are novelty dice, right? Those overpriced things you buy to have a talking point for the night and maybe roll them once as a joke?
>>47706543
2d10
checks are made by roll x stat instead roll+ stat
calculators included
>>47711208
You fucking madman. At least make it Skill x 0.1d100 if you're already using calculators.
Roll under or Modifier+Roll?
>>47709000
>I'll never comprehend why anyone would want their randomization mechanic to be rigged in a less random way.
>They could have easily just designed the base mechanics to be more functional instead.
Sometimes you want results to be expressed as a curve rather than as a simple fraction.
Dicepools also let you stack multiple attacks into the same roll; if you roll 3d10 for 3 attacks and just modify the final number of hits, that's a lot faster than 1d10 with modifiers three times.
>>47711332
00 is 100
>>47711374
>Sometimes you want results to be expressed as a curve rather than as a simple fraction.
But WHY would anyone want that?
>Dicepools also let you stack multiple attacks into the same roll; if you roll 3d10 for 3 attacks and just modify the final number of hits, that's a lot faster than 1d10 with modifiers three times.
I'm pretty sure in most dicepool systems three attacks with one success are treated differently than one attack with three successes. So you can't just bundle up all your dice like that.
>>47706543
Multiple dice for that sweet bellcurve
Dice pools are OK too, just kind of unwieldy in practice
>>47709000
>80 more sides isn't minimal, it makes everyone have to start thinking on a larger, more annoying order.
Are you kidding? Most people find it natural to think in percentages and may have to actually do math on other dice to convert them to percentages in order to have a good idea of what their chances for success are.
Now, the actual dice are a bit more involved than rolling a single d20 (but not by that much), and the level of granularity they produce might be unnecessary for the game you're playing.
Dice pools, on the other hand, require handfuls of dice and it is significantly slower to gather your dice, roll them, and tabulate the results. Furthermore, the probabilities in dice pools can be harder to intuit and work with, and unless the game is designed to work with shit tons of dice (which is obnoxious for obvious reasons), the difference of a single die can be a really big deal, making the smallest difference in ability quite large. What dice pools do give you, however, is an easy way to produce varying levels of success.
>>47706543
The D6 is the most common dice, so it's automatically the best.
Now add dice pools whether or not you're playing with just two dice or a dozen, and you've already improved things tenfolds.
>>47712601
What about success/fail as apposed to sum?
>>47706543
d20, since the granularity rarely matters and working with large numbers is annoying.
Prefer 2d6 though. Results get a bit weighted and there's really no thinking 'overhead' unlike most dice pools.
>>47712601
>The D6 is the most common dice
>not coin flips
>>47711487
Because having more consistent results means your characters stats matter more, and makes more sense than experts having 5% chance to totally fuck everything up and novices having the se chance to succeed at a task well beyond their training.
>>47714258
I'm 90% sure I have more D6s than coins
>>47710258
>>47710540
I didn't even know that actual d100 existed until now. Who the fuck doesn't use two d10 instead?
>>47706543
d100 because it's more natural to thing on %
The d20 is only justified by tradition and useless for newcomers. You might as well be using d6.
>>47714559
D10s a shit, proper dice are platonic solids
>>47706543
d6 system from Shadowrun.
>>47716613
Mechanically sound. But if only those books weren't written so fucking terribly people might actually be able to understand and play them
>>47711253
it is 2d10 to achieve a bell curve. and we have , like , 350 d10 at hand.
also , assuming stats/skills are within dimensions of less then 3 digits , you only need to type in 5 digits at most
f.e. 17(str) x 12(roll)
>>47714594
Not that anon, but I'm curious: why is it that people prefer dice with regular shapes? Is it just pleasing geometry or does it effect probability in some negative way?
D120
Fight me.
>>47717074
It's great as long as you don't mind that it never stops rolling.
>>47717179
It really doesn't.
I hope someone spares me his time to explain to me why d20 is shit. I'm genuinely curious. Examples needed.
>>47717697
you mean the d20 System or icosahedral dice numbered 1-20?
d20 * d5
>>47710358
Yes you were, anon. Don't lie.
The d100 is false precision incarnate.
>>47717016
Autism
I kind of like the D20 system and don't particularly care if it's obsolete because they correspond to the Platonic solids. I don't know, why not infuse your dice-rolling with a bit of lore for your game? It just makes things a bit more fun
>>47714457
>I'm 90% sure I have more D6s than coins
Really? I'm only 83.33% sure.
2D6 is superior to 1D20 because of center weighting
1D100 should only be nessisary for very niche events, not a core part of the engine. You do not need 100 part granularity as part of general conflict resolution. That being said, you don't need a 100 sided dice for 1d100, just use 2 ten sided dice, rolled one at a time. Idiot.
>>47706543
Still waiting for someone to use this in a homebrew or something.
Roll 3dX, take the middle result.
No-math centered curve
>>47720152
Interesting, I may try this with WRM.
>>47720233
At the very least, it's great to use in otherwise flat systems as a "drop in" solution for people who prefer having a dice curve. Just don't use crit-confirmation with this, it's built in.
>>47720251
WRM is 1D6 where a 6 is rerolled and added to the previous roll - would change that to a 5 or 6 with this system
>>47720152
>>47720251
Speaking of which, comparison to classic 2dX curves, it's not far off.
>>47706543
>Not using bell curves
>>47709290
You do realize that "roll under target" is the same as "add target to roll over <die lowest plus die highest> right?
Which is to say, rolling a d20 to get an 8 or less is the same as adding 8 to a d20 with a target of 21+.
>>47720381
In principle yes but the stat that is defined by the dm isn t the same in both cases. Basically it s d&d vs wfrp
>>47719094
He said he liked his fumbles <5% of the time. Nothing to do with False precision in that case.
>>47706543
Your presented options suck. Get three six-sided dice and roll those.
>>47706543
>Take any d20 game
>Replace all d20 rolls with 3d6
>Tweak critical rules to fit
Automatically better.
>>47706543
Depends entirely on how its used.
Assuming d100 as in percentile, where the system doesn't scale past 100%, then often I'll prefer that. Not because it has more granularity, but because it's more immediately obvious how the numbers interplay. It requires less system-specific expertise to know how easy or difficult something is when compared to the typical d20-based game.
>>47706543
3d20
>>47709790
>False precision
How? In game, you actually do have a 31% chance. In real life, you have an exact chance as well, it's just that the system might not have correctly estimated the chance.
>>47706543
d1000
>>47722201
Easy?
You are using your false sense of precision to try and gauge that real life chance, when in reality you probably can't even guess it as closely as a d10, much less a d20, definitely not to an exact percent d100.
Overall you're just wasting thought and using a more complicated system for the sake of being complicated.
>>47714457
I pay with plastic, who the fuck still carries any change?
>>47722771
Basically.
>>47720381
You are also adding complication to what would have been an easy check.
>>47709007
That has the exact same probability as a d10.
>>47722986
Looks different, honestly, if that is what he prefers. So be it.
I'd rather not have a set of d10s that I would easily confuse for my d20s
Rune Quest is my Systemfu so d100 every time.
It would be remiss of me to answer otherwise.
>>47722387
That's not fair, faggot.
>>47723143
My dice sets consist only of a d8 (two, one of which is numbered 1-4 twice) , a d12 (two, one of which is numbered 1-6 twice) and a d20 (two, one numbered 1-10 twice): only dice that actually roll and they cover the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20 with just three shapes.
I like d20 systems. They're fun when you want your rolls to be random, rather than beholden to a predictable curve.
That said, my favorite game right now is Savage Worlds, and that's d4 through d12 with a d6 as a "wild die". The only downside of it is that it's, as I said, somewhat predictable.
>>47723408
I've honestly been considering doing something like that just because of how awful actual D4s are.
>>47722771
So the system incorrectly approximates the chance. In most cases this is nonsense because the system in question had fireballs and levitation spells and dragons and elves and therefore, it doesn't even follow the basic laws of physics anyway. Therefore, in the game world, it might just be that the chance actually is 31% and not 30%.
>>47723450
The point of multiple dice is to put the more likely outcomes in the middle
They make fumbles/perfect rolls more rare, effectually stretching the roll outcome over a greater interval
>>47723566
Yeah thanks, I know what a bell curve is, I made it through high school level Statistics well enough. That's what I was saying, is that systems with multiple dice tend to weigh results in a way that the GM can generally predict and prepare for.
There's still fun to be had in systems where there is no such curve.
>>47723636
Yeah
The point is, if you know how the curve stretches the rolls, you can still have random rolls
Imagine 3d6 where 10 is fumble and 11 is perfect roll
>>47723538
Yes, the d100 systems as well as players incorrectly approximate the chance when a broader range of % such as 5% from a d20 would be more accurate in essentially all cases due to the large number of unknown variables for a situation.
>>47717697
Platonic solids a shit
>>47722387
I want to see teetotums used in tabletop RPGs. I feel like they might not fall off the table as much.
>>47720152
>Those fat tails.
>>47723698
You've been playing JRPGs?
>>47724361
Except the icosahedron is the only good way to get a range of 1-20. The next good shape divisible by 20 has 60 sides. However, rhombic dodecahedra are olev. Dat honeycomb.
>>47724420
Go back to Israel and take your dreidels with you!
>>47707745
That is still a curve. Nice or not is subjective.
>>47724956
By the definition you seem to be using, 1d6 is a curve as well.
>>47725836
That's a line, dummy.
>>47725858
If that's a line, then 2d6 is two lines.
>>47706543
Out of the two, d100, though I will always have a soft spot in my heart for d20.
>>47723812
>more accurate due to unknown variables
Do you even know what words mean
>>47725882
How autistic must you be to declare that something is not a curve JUST because the line graph doesn't make a pretty little bell shape? You do realize that 2d6 is still weighted towards the middle, right?
>>47709456
Worst post in the thread. Don't use words you don't understand.
>>47731830
absolute value functions are not curves
>>47733550
>>47730325
Do you? You should look up the definiton of approximate before you embarrass yourself.
When you try and pretend something is precise when it's actual accuracy makes it anything but...
