Why aren't d12's used more?

>>54361108
Because most of the people who have used it weren't very good at writing systems.

Because using it to replace d6, d4, and d3 though corresponding modulo is too much math for average player.

Because there's very little they do better than a d10. Apart from a strict succession of dice sizes, generally a d10 gives you a similar enough range and that it's a nice easy decimal makes calculations and building mechanics around it a lot cleaner and easier.

I do love d12's. They're fun dice to roll and they look great, but they're not a dice that would really carry a system as anything other than a gimmick, chosen precisely because they aren't used very much.

>>54361108
D14s are superior to be honest.

>>54361215
Interesting, I haven't seen a d14 in person before

>>54361164
On the contrary, while they don't break down easily into 10% intervals, d12s are easily divisible by 2,3, and 4. So if you want a 25%, 75%, 33.3% or 66.6% then a d12 is ideal. On a related note, base 12 makes for a better counting system than base 10.

>>54361737

Better, maybe. More familiar? Hell no, and that essence of familiarity is what makes d10's better the majority of the time. The d12 might have a few nice values, but those 10% increments are incredibly intuitive.

>>54361857
>>54361737
This is the exact same line of argumentation of metric vs imperial.

>>54361903
Sorry, for 12 inches to a foot. Most other imperial measurements are not as defensible.