Core Mechanic

What's your favourite core mechanic and why? D20? D100? 3d6? Jenga?

Bump.

Percentiles roll under because you just can't fuck it up.

Bell curves. 3d6, 4dF, pick highest die pools.

I started playing with second edition DnD. LOL at wanting games to have a core mechanic. Back in my day every type of action used a different mechanic and we liked it that way!

But 2e did have a core mechanic. D20. Multiple specialized subsystems does not preclude a core mechanic, at least IMHO.

The d20 is the easiest to use and understand, which is funny because there are people who still don't understand it.

Each one point increment is an increment of 5%. That's the great mystery behind this die.
It's simple to use, both in regards to it being a single die and the math surrounding it being easy and transparent, and it satisfies the random chance element without any needless or tedious complications.

If you want more consistent results, you don't need to use a bell curve, you just need to adjust the target numbers higher or lower depending on whether you want success or failure to be more consistent.

"Linear progression works fine as long as you fudge target numbers to ape what a bell curve does by default!"

The most successful games I've ever run have been d20 ones. While the rules themselves can be quite complicated, ultimately they boil down to "Roll this dice, add those numbers, and if the sum is higher than this number here, you succeed".
I've also had fun with d100 roll under systems, but my personal opinion is that d20 is the best for generic roleplaying games.

>I don't actually play games so I don't understand what I'm talking about

All the bell curve does is make the math involve awkward increments that force the GM and system designers to stay in a relatively narrow range of values because the extremes of the dice are too finicky to be reliably worked with.

If the argument is "consistent results", "consistent" success or failure all can be determined by the target numbers.

>I've never played anything besides D&D
Yeah, okay bud.

>All the bell curve does is make the math involve awkward increments that force the GM and system designers to stay in a relatively narrow range of values because the extremes of the dice are too finicky to be reliably worked with.

Bell curve virgin detected.

I like, make a pool then add two highest rolling die from Cortex.
Before I discovered that I liked Silhoutte a lot, Skill level is the amount of d6 in pool. Rate the single highest die and add attribute. Skilled people will perform well but a prodigy has a chance to surpass them.
For systems where players are the underdogs most of the time (eg. D&D) it actually helps to have a linear dice curve. So depending on the game style I like those also.

I like D100, but that's the only system I've gone very in-depth with. So.

As somebody that despises D&D, the twenty sided die is not Satan like you bell curve retards seem to thing it is. Linear percentages are easier to quickly know what chance a player has of fucking up. Roll a 5 get %25, roll a 15 get %15.

Not only that, but 3d6 gives you only 16 results instead of a full 20. You roll three dice and you get less target numbers to choose from, and you say it's objectively superior to rolling a single dice that you can assign 20 full target numbers to, are you fucking kidding me. 3d6 also makes it harder to use your skill value roll under for your target number, so it's not even as robust as a d20 on top of giving you less results.

Fuck you.

*think
*%75
Quick correct on my sleep deprived typos

>you get less target numbers to choose from
If that were important, exploding dice should be the greatest thing since ever.

The only thing you used the D20 for in Wl2e was attack rolls and saves. And those two D20 rolls used different systems.That's not a core mechanic.

Here we go again. One of the oldest intractable arguments in the hobby, linear vs bell is at least 40 years along.

Of course, this is Veeky Forums. Intractable is what we do here.

I like exploding d8s. I used to like 3d6, but then I realized how much rolling that'd be, and so now I am an #8ball.

The numerical ranges and probabilities possible with exploding d8s really excite me, and it makes multiple attacks or groups of people look kind of like a White Wolf fight.

I like 2d6. It's purist. It's the core mechanic of countless gambling, board and role-playing games.

It's extraordinarily familiar, gives a decent probability spread, and the fact that the dice have pips gives the rolling of doubles some extra umph.

Nobody said bell curve is objectively better here sperg, the posts you replied to were stating that bell curve isn't objectively INFERIOR to linear progression i.e. D20.

The guy who started this basically said "bell curves are useless, d20 is best because you can mimic a bell curve by fudging target numbers hurrhurr".

This isn't an argument about why bell curve is BEST MECHANIC EVER INVENTED, it's an argument about why D20 isn't.

Go to bed.

4d6 - 4. ( I prefer using 6 sided die numbered 0 through 5)

This gives a nice bellcurve with a range of 0 - 20.

Just because you want more granularity, you don't automatically want unlimited granularity.

>I prefer using 6 sided die numbered 0 through 5
That works.
>4d6 - 4
That doesn't.

Putting a function at the end of a roll is what you do for bonuses and penalties. You can't do it by default or it feels like the mechanic is inherently penalizing you.

>implying 3d6 with limited range is the only bell curve model

FUDGE dice master race, infinitely scalable bell curve nirvana.

Powered by the Apocalypse, comrade.

>The guy who started this basically said "bell curves are useless, d20 is best because you can mimic a bell curve by fudging target numbers hurrhurr".

It's not "mimicking" the bell curve.

Here's a basic math problem to help you understand the "consistency" argument.

Between 3d6 trying to meet or exceed an average target number of 15 and 1d20 with an average target number of 19, which will more consistently result in a success?

I'll help you out with the 3d6 math, because it's a 9.26% chance, which is less than the 10% of the d20, with the d20 providing a more consistent rate of success.

But, if you lower the 3d6 target number to 14, with a 16.2% chance of success, it becomes more "consistent", until you lower the d20's target number to 17. At the end of the day, the argument of "A bell curve provides more consistent results" only works if you ignore the actual resolution mechanic and only pay attention to the raw unapplied output.

3d6, altogether, is just a clunky, old-fashioned remnant from a time before the d20 dice was common. It works for what it is, but it's less intuitive and harder to work with. The benefit of this is that designers are forced to work within a relatively narrow field of numbers which results in "safe" systems that can't really push any mathematical boundaries, but that's essentially saying the benefit of walking instead of running is that you're less likely to hurt yourself, when really all you're doing is going slow and not bothering to explore anything outside of a tiny comfort zone.

The d20 is an elegant tool that allows people to quickly assess chances and to play with a wide field of values that scale consistently, with the consistency of success and failure a separate concern that can be easily adjusted according to its intended use.

D100, dice pools, and fudge die are the only things worth discussing (except maybe exploding in some capacity). D20 is strictly inferior to d100, fudge is superior to 3d6, and dice pools or exploding dice have their own unique feel - even if it's a bit wonky.

Specialty dice can also be discussed, but the only advantage of specialty dice is making it easier to read. I would say fudge is the most flexible and intuitive of the speciality dice compared to something like FFG Star Wars.

Gotta go to bat for the One Roll Engine. Fast, easy and most importantly fun. Plus it backs up some awesome games.