Dice and probability

>>48657496
Damn, forgot the link.

http://anydice.com/program/9099

I don't pretend curvature is important in games that use binary pass/fail results, so I prefer flat probabilities because they are easier to use and calculate.

I'm kinda fond of 2d10. it's a pretty light bell curve, and it's nice how all the probability percentages are whole numbers.

>>48657534
Wait, not a bell curve, why did I say that.

>>48657532
>not just enjoying the pretty math

In any case, I do like to include degrees of failure/success. And I appreciate how a curvature makes it less swingy - too much swinginess makes it feel like the game is completely out of your hands and it doesn´t matter what you´re trying to do or what the character can do, only what the dice say.

>>48657496
I'm a big fan of the shape and feel of the d12, and i've really burnt out on the flat probabilty of 1d20; lately, been tinkering with (and greatly enjoying) a 2d12 system with one die being positive and one negative. For math purposes, it's just 2d12-13, but it's a very nice range from -11 to +11, with a strong curve-based average around 0. helps the dice to feel like they nudge results in either direction to maintain unpredictability, but 0 is both the mean and the mode result, so you can reliably guess at math/results independent of the dice.

>>48657620
> makes it feel like the game is completely out of your hands and it doesn´t matter what you´re trying to do or what the character can do, only what the dice say.

That's why I prefer flat probabilities, because they're easier to calculate and understand, and you don't have to deal with the limitations of a dice set that produces skewed results within a limited range. Having to work around a widened "mediocre" range is cumbersome, especially because the kind of actions or checks where you want "reliable" results are the kind that players shouldn't even be rolling for in the first place.

With flat probabilities, it's much easier to tune exactly how swingy or not swingy you want a game to be, all the way down to a ratio of a single percentage with d% games. That's much more accuracy and control than most people ever need over the feel of a game.

>>48657496

>>48657496
I don't go wild for bell curves like most anons here. Two dice are sufficient for pass/fail rolls.
Has anyone ever made a 1d12+1d6 system just so the average result would be 10? Or 1d20+1d8 so it would be 15?

>throw 2d6 and d12 to test it out
>the three of them roll 3
>wow that's weird
>roll again
>the three of them roll 6

HELP

>>48658907
will sagest the fudge system
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Fudge_dice

>>48657566
it is a bell curve, it just needs more data input

Rolled 3, 3, 2 + 4 = 12 (3d4 + 4)

>>48657496
Playing fifth edition, I've found a nice little sweet spot with rolls.

3d4+4.

>>48657496
People like 3d6 because the curvature ISN'T smooth. It makes simple actions very likely to be successes while very complex or difficult actions have huge probabilities of failure. It means the GM is in control of a more intuitive and flexible game. Smoothing the curvature takes that whole idea away.

tl;dr you're a dumb butthead

>>48659017
I know well-designed percentile d100 games aren't swingy and probabilistically simpler, but I just like bell curves better. It feels better to roll and more intuitive to assign target numbers.

Why is that? Am I just a curve fetishist?

http://anydice.com/program/90a6