>no whining or complaining about dice rolls in any way Is

>>53775509

If whining is a big enough problem at the table that you need to institute a formal rule then you need to find a new group. Preferably adults and not children.

>>53775509
Yes, as long as all dice rolls are in the open.

Yes. Complaining about random numbers being number is immature and annoying for the others, particularly when those failed rolls have no real impacts on your character, the group or the story.
If you want to succeed in every task you made, go play video games or a system that alloxs it without rolling.

If this is a crackdown on "aw damn" kinda complaints, that's probably spergy, but if it's "REEEE I FUCKED MY WRIST UP" shit...

File: 1488131004675.jpg (13KB, 339x302px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 339x302px

>Playing warmahordes rpg
>Farrow Warlock
>My pig is great hits everything and does crazy damage
>My gunmanship is awful despite all my focus in it
>Becomes running joke that I cannot hit the anything ever
>Roll with it
>Finally hit something
>Tables erupts into cheers

I used to complain about dice but once you start laughing at it yourself than it's great.

File: 1496720405244.png (36KB, 118x124px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 118x124px

"I'm sorry, are the little pieces of plastic bullying you?"

File: 1285065873457.jpg (482KB, 1024x1592px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1024x1592px

>>53775509
>"Aw damn"
>"Crap"
>"Welp"
>"Shit"
>"Oops"
>"Well that sucks"
>"Dammit"
These are fine.
>"REEEEEEEE"
>"OH FUCK THIS DIE"
>throwing your dice
This is juvenile. That said though, I've had bad days where I get mad at dice rolls, but it usually takes a series of bad rolls or me being in a shit mood for me to actually get upset at it. Usually it's just the "Well shit" and "Nope" kinda stuff.

>>53776192
Reasonable response is reasonable.

>>53775509
And miss all the laughs my group gets as one guy spergs out over how bad his rolls are? He goes bright red and veins bulge and we laugh all the harder as he keeps rolling bad. It's practicaly a stage show and action move rolled into one.

>>53775509
>replace all single-die uniform distribution rolls with equivalent multiple-dice rolls approximating normal distributions
Is this a fair rule to implement at a table?

>>53776457
Is that artwork by Bruce Timm?

>>53776564
Well, what would the effects be on the mechanics/difficulty number-needs etc. if you replaced 1d20 with, say 2d10?

>>53776660
Massively increased realism.

>>53775509
>That's How I Roll (2007)
>https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/That%27s_How_I_Roll_-_A_Scientific_Analysis_of_Dice

>>53775509
Don't use dice.

>>53776678
>he thinks the curve of a 2d10 is any more realistic than a d20
>he thinks realism is achieved by the dice
>he thinks more complex maths for a game of pretend somehow makes it mroe realistic
>he thinks realism is worth anything

>>53776787
But it's true. In the real world uniform distribution doesn't happen so often. And frankly I'm tired of people spontaneously ejaculating whenever they see a 20. Better to use 3d6.

>>53776809
>But it's true. In the real world uniform distribution doesn't happen so often.

During what? How do you even measure this shit? d20 systems use a pass/fail mechanic, so there's no way to tell how well you had done a task. There's virtually no difference between failing or succeeding by 1 or 10.

>And frankly I'm tired of people spontaneously ejaculating whenever they see a 20.

I'm with you there, crits were a mistake.

>>53776838
The difference is when the stats say you're concretely able to do something you don't have a huge chunk of random failure lurking there and when you're not able to do something then you get fucked like you would in real life. Little bonuses and maluses make a bigger difference when things are closer to an even match and it minimizes the randumb when they're obviously slanted.

>>53776907
>The difference is when the stats say you're concretely able to do something you don't have a huge chunk of random failure lurking there and when you're not able to do something then you get fucked like you would in real life

The chunk of random failure on a d20 doesn't have to be huge. If you have 75% chance of something, you have 75% chance of something, regardless if you are rolling a d20 or 3d6.

> Little bonuses and maluses make a bigger difference when things are closer to an even match and it minimizes the randumb when they're obviously slanted.

So use larger bonuses/maluses for a d20. You kinda have to, the dice range is pretty big (d10 is more ideal imo).

I'm not saying that, say, 5e dice math is well designed (SW SAGA has math a lot better fitting for the d20), but I'm so fucking tired of the 3d6 meme regurgitated by people who never sat down to think about this shit.

>>53776945
>If you have 75% chance of something, you have 75% chance of something, regardless if you are rolling a d20 or 3d6.
It's mental effect, for the GM who thinks being good at something means you fail 1 out of every 4 times. Very infrequently do you actually have this kind of scenario; most of the time either you succeed consistently or you struggle to succeed at all.
>So use larger bonuses/maluses for a d20.
This doesn't provide the same effect because when your distribution is curved, the effect of the same bonus or malus is different at different parts of the curve, in a very natural way handled by the math. Trying to achieve this with d20 simply feels hamfisted and arbitrary, unless you draw up tables to help you decide, in which case you defeat your own purpose.

>>53777031
> the effect of the same bonus or malus is different at different parts of the curve, in a very natural way handled by the math

Why is "I can't tell at a glance how much a bonus is worth" a good thing somehow suddenly?

>Trying to achieve this with d20 simply feels hamfisted and arbitrary, unless you draw up tables to help you decide, in which case you defeat your own purpose.

You don't have to simulate a curve with a d20. You don't _want_ to simulate a curve with a d20. You just want to use bonus sizes that are meaningful instead of many +1-2.

Also, this is leading away from the whole "2d10 is more realistic" shit to begin with.

>>53777083
>Why is "I can't tell at a glance how much a bonus is worth" a good thing somehow suddenly?
Knowing that a bonus is worth exactly n% at all times is both an unnatural way of playing and also doesn't help as much as you'd think.
>You don't have to simulate a curve with a d20. You don't _want_ to simulate a curve with a d20.
Because that's not what it's suited for; correct. But I hold the curve as more desirable.
>You just want to use bonus sizes that are meaningful instead of many +1-2.
And you have to decide from scratch every time or draw up a table for what makes "meaningful". I think it's better for the human to think simply and the math to make things meaningful.

>>53777128
>Knowing that a bonus is worth exactly n% at all times is both an unnatural way of playing and also doesn't help as much as you'd think.

How is having a good ability to estimate how much a thing helps unnatural?

>And you have to decide from scratch every time or draw up a table for what makes "meaningful".

... No? You have to decide once, when you design the game. Then just keep applying it consistently.

>>53776678
Yeah, but chances of Critical Hits in Pathfinder, for example, would be strongly affected, for example.

And target numbers for Skill Rolls would need some tweaking I imagine, since we'd move from a Median to an Average.

>>53777160
>How is having a good ability to estimate how much a thing helps unnatural?
It takes training to understand probabilities realistically. See the 75% example. 1 out of 4 chance to bungle something is shitty odds but people only see "75% is a big number" whereas "95% is too big". So it's better to think in terms of "it's close but this will be a big help, this will fuck me over" than "oh huh, this bonus makes me 10% more likely to succeed" when you don't know what 10% really means other than vaguely that 25% gut-feels more palatable to you than 35%.
>>53777191
Critical hits were a mistake. Properly implement gradated success or tuck it back into your trousers.

File: 3d20m master race.png (101KB, 1333x850px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1333x850px

Just gonna leave this here.

>>53777214
Distribution shaped like a tit is no way to play, anon.

>>53777212
>people stuff
Okay, if you are going into people's perceptions about things, I guess I'll just agree to disagree, because my my experiences had been a lot different. It's also subtly moving the goalposts imo, since we are not talking about the perception of a system but how it actually is and the math behind it.

I said what I wanted to say, so it's time for me to bow out and agree to disagree.

>Critical hits were a mistake. Properly implement gradated success or tuck it back into your trousers.

Still seconding this, however.

>>53777246
>implying breasts aren't the perfect form for everything

>>53775509
People whine about dice rolls? I can understand whining about being forced to roll for shit that really shouldn't require a check in the first place (hurr durr tying your shoes, roll dex to not strangle yourself with your shoelaces nurrrrr), but the actual rolls and results? Yes OP, a "shut the fuck up, bitch" rule is reasonable.


>>53775594
This, which I thought was already a given for everybody except the DM (because a good DM should be allowed to fudge some numbers occasionally while a shit DM who would abuse it shouldn't be DM in the first place).

File: 1450479648325.jpg (91KB, 700x520px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 700x520px

>>53777261
You're onto something, there.

>>53775509
I don't see the problem in complaining about dice rolls as long as the player doesn't get so frustrated that they start distracting from the game or start demanding some autistic do-over roll. It's just a game, yeah, but many people can get heavily invested in it and I don't think it makes much sense to punish people for getting slightly peeved or demand that they never make a negative remark about a failed roll.

That being said, if this is a big enough problem that you're considering implementing a rule to stop it then maybe you should just find a new group.

>>53775509
I need a 6 on a d20 to hit, I rolled a 1, two 2s, and two 3s. I've tried numerous other people's dice, my average role on a d20 is a 6.

I don't even believe in luck, I tend to think "eh, outliers exist, things will still tend towards the mean" but whenever I play any game that involves rolling I have constant unabated failure from constant poor dice rolls. People ask me why I invest so much in increasing my hit rolls or having several times more AT than I should need in FoW or 40k and the answer is I need that redundancy to have the slightest chance of success.