• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

D6 and D100


SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Here's a hot-button of mine.

My gaming group consists of four friends. Half love percentile dice; one loves D6; one uses whatever's needed for the rules in the current campaign. I am the D6 person.

The argument against variable D6's is that it's too hard to know the probability curve. Is this a control issue? How much should one know about one's probability that a staggering (for example) task will succeed? I agree in principle that not knowing one's chances at all are useless to the player, and I also agree that lookup tables are tedious.

Percentiles make it abundantly clear what one's chances are for success, and how skilled a character really is, for that matter.

Yet I flinch at the thought of using D100 for Classic Traveller, or MT, or T4.

Anyone have some helpful opinion about this matter?
Adventuring by nature is about taking risks. While calculating the odds are one thing, one does not have time (especially during combat) to calculate the chances of success or failure.

If the d6 probability bothers him, then suggest that he pick up a copy of T20.
what the referee says, should be the way it's done. the only point of the dice is to introduce some element of random chance - how that's done doesn't really matter.

if the players begin calculating chances looking up tables and otherwise analyzing the choices, during a game, then the referee should rule that the characters are busy doing calculations and not paying attention to what is happening to them, and let them take the consequences. least that's how I do it.
Try changing to a 2d10 task resolution system. I've finally started a fantasy game that uses this as the core mechanic and it's worked well so far.
A quick precis:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Attribute bonus
1-3 +1
4-6 +2
7-9 +3
10-12 +4
13-15 +5 </pre>[/QUOTE]Skills are rated 1-5, levels 4 and 5 cost more and characters with a skill of 3 or more can by specialisms to add to their skills.

To succeed at a task add the relevant attribute modifier, skill and specialism bonus, to the roll of 2d10:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Task Roll
Difficulty Required
easy 5+
routine 10+
challenging 15+
hard 20+
v.hard 25+
staggering 30+
mythic 35+</pre>[/QUOTE]There are situational and equipment bonuses in case you were wondering how to succeed at the higher difficulties ;)
Note, this system started life as my homebrew Traveller rules. Little do they know that they are playing a game of Traveller (they are "barbarians" on a world with a lot of relic high tech "magic" items to be found and a psionic based magic system.
I always liked the d100 system that FASA used for it's Star Trek line. It seemed very intuitive. Although Spock with 102 for his Intelligence just didn't seem right. I mean, he's got to be wrong sometime, right?

The real problem for me is whether T5 is going to be playable or not. So I suppose this thread should be moved.

A related issue is how the gaming engine is designed. The opinion is that complex rules require a more simple dice mechanic, while simpler rules are fine employing a probability curve.

Actually, I'm not quite sure I fully understand how the two are related.
My problem with d100 is that it's a flat probability line. You're just as likely to get a 00 as you are to get 01, 33, 56, or 94 (because you're not adding the two d10s together, you're just reading them side by side).

I prefer a proper probability curve where you're likely to roll average and least likely to roll at the extremes.
Put me down for 2d(N) ;)

However, to get a probability curve, you need at least 3d, preferably 4d to get a true bell curve.
Yes, 2dN is a "Bilinear plot"

Then again, a d10 marked 1, 2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4 is still a monolinear linear plot, too...

as for dicing, in general:
the randomness imprted needs towork well for the setting and the players. That's part of why there are different gme engines.

I've always found percentile systems like FASA Trek lacking. the low end skills, when modifiers are applied, still fail relatively trivial rolls fairly often, which are descibed as beingin their level of competence.

2dx of 3dx roll high has always been my preference (aside from my game design experiment with xd6 roll low... players hated it. And I had higher target numbers than does t4...). Multiple d6's roll high isn't bad (d6 engine) nor multiple d10's (L5R, 7thSea).