>>48005764
>I have heard people complain about flat distributions before, and I can understand why they're not ideal.

They are adequate if you build your game on binary pass/fail mechanics.

Of course, binary pass/fail mechanics kinda limit your design space which sucks.

Also, on top of curve you need to keep in mind the ease of use.

Yes, maybe your d6+d8+d10+d20 rolling mechanic has the "ideal curve" but it's a bitch to roll and add 4 dice every single time you do something.

I like 2d6, it leaves you room for bonuses and it's fast to calculate (though 2d10 is more granular).

Also worth mentioning is 1d6-1d6, has the same curve but since the average will be 0 it's more elegant to calculate with (imo), but subtraction is harder for people to do fast.

>>48005809
Hmm.

Is being suited to physical dice that important?

I'd be quite happy with a digital solution that did any math for me and just sit out a result. Everyone I know has a cellphone, and is be just as happy with a cellphone app as I would be with dive, possibly more so if the app somehow makes things better than dice, such as factoring in all your modifiers you and making things really convenient.

>>48005833
Yeah, and even if you prefer physical dice, you could still just calculate your ideal curve and then make custom dice that have that distribution.

That said... the ideal curve depends on the game you are trying to create, what and when the character's roll for. If you only roll for binary results ("can I jump this cliff? Can I pick this lock?") a flat distribution is fine (d% and d20 systems use this, for example). If you want more degrees of success (or failure) you'll _probably_ want curves, just so the game doesn't turn into an inconsistent comedy of chance (which however could be fun). These can all be mitigated with additional mechanics to boot (say, take 10 for D&D), and we haven't even begun discussing the maths behind dice pools.

>>48005833
I think most people would prefer to roll dice than to have even the most perfect number distribution. While a digital solution speaks to my probability fetish, I have a feeling that a game that required it would have trouble getting players.

>>48005893
>the maths behind dice pools.
>tfw trying to feed Exalted into Anydice
It's not a complex situation: you reroll 1's, 2's, and 3's, count 10's twice, count the 9's separately for certain Charm activations, and multiply 4's, 5's, and 6's by the Fourier transform of the reflected light from the nearest wall to your left.

>>48005983
This.

A lot of games have very complicated mechanics which are easy for people to grasp (I can apply my smartgun bonus and my Improved Agility power but not my cyberarm or vision enhancement) but are a bitch to code for, not to mention being twice a bitch to select all the applicable modifiers for any given roll from some sort of drop-down menu instead of shuffling around the dice in your hand.

So yes>>48005833 being suited to physical dice is important. Aside from practical considerations like 'you don't want everyone looking at their phones the whole time', having a system that is easily understood and practised with real dice is better than some unholy codemonster.

Why do people seem to hate flat distribution so much? I really don't see what's wront with it.
Every flat distribution can be translated to a d100, and "you have X% chances of success" sounds like a solid system.

I like my probability reliable, but obtuse.
That's why I love Dicepools. I can generally count on a number of successes, but I can't be 100% sure. As a DM, I have a good feeling for how many required successes are how hard, broadly speaking, but I don't need to know the exact probability. You just get a feel for the numbers and it flows.

>>48005764

*TRAIT* distributions are different from distributions of success probabilities.

Traits are nearly always distributed normally in a population. In GURPS and D&D, average is 10 or so, with a few points in each direction representing most normal humans.

You're talking success mechanics. Ultimately, when you're using dice is boils down to flat versus normal(-ish) distributions. Each have their attractions.

I prefer 3d6 from GURPS because it behaves well when you have major differences between characters and when you have large numbers of stacking bonuses. Notice how Pathfinder has trouble in both those situations. My only complaint is that wanting to roll low feels wrong-- but you get used to it.

>>48007397

nWoD is fine. oWoD was terrible but it was rescued to some extent by the fact that oWoD had a very narrative style that discouraged lots of rolls and crunchy mechanics. nWoD does have that attraction. It's a question of style.

>>48006481
Being hard to enter into anydice doesn't make it hard to write a script for it...

In fact, the more dice you need to select, the more useful it'd be. Hell, I'm pretty sure Chummer already calculates what dice you need to roll if you shoot a chosen weapon automatically.

What sounds more appealing?
4d6 with 6=0
Or
4d6-4
I know mathematically they are the same but what is more appealing as a player? I'm thinking it's 6=0

>>48006509
Some people want more than pass/fail from a single roll, and want that roll to also tell them how well or how poorly they did, or even if there's a complication.

I don't feel a need for the complication bit, but I do like "how well did i do" being part of the "did I pass/fail" roll, and that doesn't work well with flat probabilities at all.