3d6 vs 1d20

What do you prefer, Veeky Forums?
Personally I prefer 3d6, I find it gives average results more often than a d20.

Other urls found in this thread:

anydice.com/program/a5b9
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Ranking dice mechanics in a vacuum is pointless, different mechanics are good for different things.

3d6 is good for more grounded systems where a reliable baseline is expected and extreme results are rare. it allows for better planning and keeps things more predictable.

Meanwhile, d20 is better if you want something more over the top. Where you can always get that lucky 20 or that catastrophic 1, creating a greater sense of uncertainty and dramatic success or failure.

There are systems where the former is more appropriate, and systems where the latter is more appropriate. Neither is better or worse.

3d6 has a spread that's really more similar to a d10 than a d20. If you simply double everything for the d20 (so that a +1 on 3d6 becomes a +2 on a d20), their results will always be less than 5 percentiles apart.

A graphic representation of that.

But that required doubling everything. I'm confused as to why that has any relevance.

They're both so overused. Where's the love for 2d10?

That's interesting, I wasn't aware of this.
3d6 does have a smoother curve, but they're mostly similar with what you mention.
1d20 looks like a series of linear growth lines linked together.

I suppose I figured there was more data on the two over 2d10, so it would be easier to compare.

>it gives average results more often than a d20.
Yes. But why do you think that's better?

1d20 is too swingy for my tastes.

You'll notice the major difference when you compare degrees of success instead of flat possibility of pass/fail. In 3d6 majority of results cluster around 11, so if you're rolling against 10 then most of your rolls are going to be one or two points away from it. Meanwhile on d20 you're as likely to succeed by one as fail by ten. This makes 3d6 favor the more skilled opponent in contested rolls, where d20 is more swingy.

My group and I find that combat becomes more interesting or dynamic when you can plan for exchanges rather than there being an equal chance that you'll stab yourself or curbstomp the opponent immediately.
Maybe we're just weirdos.

In a vacuum, there's no reason to pick either. Are we discussing 3d6 + modifier vs target number? 1d20 roll under? What other mechanics are built on this? How are crits determined, if they exist at all? All of these questions carry more weight than simply the die choice.

I like the 3d20 take middle, that looks great!

>But that required doubling everything
Yeah. Because d20 is more granular. It's just like how if you compare a d20 system and a d100 system, you don't dismiss the d100 system because "a +5 bonus hardly does anything!" They're clearly operating on different scales.

So if your point is that you don't need the granularity of a d20 over 3d6, that's legitimate. But when people talk about how 3d6 is "less swingy" or "more consistent", they tend to conflate the normal distribution and the different effective spreads.

The standard deviation on a d20 is 1.95 times that of the standard deviation on 3d6, and you really have to take that into account. You can't directly compare a +1 bonus on 3d6 to a +1 bonus on a d20 just like you can't directly compare a +1 bonus on a d20 to a +1 bonus on a d100.

So these what & are doing is trying to remove the scaling issue from the equation and just leaving us with a comparison between the flat distribution of a d20 and the bell-curve (normal) distribution of 3d6.

But but muh bell curve!

Given a range of 1-20 vs 3-18, doubling everything to try and say they're similar seems much less solid than multiplying by 5 to get from 1-20 to 5-100.

See

>looks

Now create an actual system with all the bells and whistles and sit down and calculate the probabilities you get out of that before asking yourself if those are the probabilities you want in each given scenario. Because that's what you'll notice playing, not the curve of the die results.

Having a 1/108 chance of an edge result compared to a 1/10 chance is a difference. As is having a 1/4 chance of an average (+- .5) result compared to 1/10. This is what people are looking at when they say things like "less random", because most people cannot into statistics and as such don't know how to discuss them.

>because most people cannot into statistics

Yep. And as such they latch on to fanboyisms, buzzwords and curvy graphs, instead of actually looking at the probabilities of various events.

d20 is overly swingy, but static target numbers are in many cases unnaturally fixed; in the end, they balance out. AC 18 does not mean your enemy is uniformly difficult to hit. The d20 picks up the randomness associated with your attack, the enemy's defense, and random circumstances that are beyond either of your control.

To illustrate further, consider some of the "taboo" ways of using the d20:

>opposed rolls
One d20 picks up all the randomness you need, so why roll 2d20? Newer editions of D&D do passive perception -- which turns your perception skill into a static DC.

>checks where the difficulty really is fixed and there are no outside random factors
Taking 10 exists for exactly this case.

>flat ability checks as a measure of your raw ability
These have always sucked and will never not suck. The d20 overwhelms the size of your ability modifier.

tl;dr, there's a right way to use d20, and it's not the same exact way you'd use 3d6.

There are some results that are outside the range if you double things on a d20, but that's the way the probabilities go an 3d6. Essentially, the results at either end of 3d6's range are fractional values when compared to a d20. So a "4" is equal to a value of approximately "4/10" on a d20. Obviously, you can't roll below a 1 on a d20, which doesn't have the sort of attenuation at either end, like 3d6 does, and that gets into the legitimate difference between a flat and normal distribution, but the scale is still right. In the case of a d20 vs a d100, you're only dealing with differences in scale, so of course it's going to be easier to convert between the two.

I don't understand why people fap over the "consistency" of 3d6. Just because your rolls tend towards 10 doesn't mean it's easier to play with. Consider that if you need to roll 11 or over, it's about 50%. Then a +1, so now you need 10 or over, it skyrockets 12% to 62. Whereas a 15+ is 9% and a 14+ is only a 7% increase in that to 16%.

Curves confuse modifiers, is my point. +1 and -1 become dependent on the starting point. It's difficult to intuitively know how much better or worse your odds are in any given situation. This is why I like single dice, because with the d20, +1 cognitively translates to 5% always, or 16.6 for a d6. That and with single die systems you can throw a lot of dice together at once.

I understand people disliking the explosive potential of single die systems, but I really don't think it's so difficult to design around. I think there have just been few games that have made mitigation of that explosiveness a core concern.

5d4s.

All of this is going towards saying that it's much easier to make a direct comparison between 3d6 and 1d10+5 than between 3d6 and 1d20.

I want to masturbate on those dice

Only if you're a ninja or trying to protect your place from ninjas. You know why.

I never see what I think is the most persuasive argument for 3d6: which is that it would tend to reduce dice bias.

That's why concerns aren't really relevant, the +1 makes a difference only at the extremes, in the middle its value stays the same.

I agree with you. Rolling 3 or more dice is fine for "secondary" rolls such as damage, but shouldn't be the default for simple pass-or-fail rolls, because that makes it hard to tell how much a +1 or -1 is worth.

get your shit together 8

why is 8 a hated number, Veeky Forums, what gods did it piss off

That's not true. 10 and 11 are the same, but it changes by more than a percentage point each increase. It isn't intuitive. Multiple dice is okay for damage, where you need to know your minimum, median and maximum potentials, but pretty shitty for checks where you want to have a good idea of how close you'll land to your target, and what you need to do to hedge your bets.

There'd be less bias if you rolled a real d20

How do you define real? Those dice have rounded edges, which can cause defects.

How do you do 3d6 in a wargame with sqauds of units attacking at the same time?

You mean a Risk-like roll, where it's 1d6 per unit in the squad but you only roll up to 3 dice at a time?

It's a tabletop game, not a casino

Hey, 8 is practically a role model for 20.

No, 3d6 per attacking unit. Like how you would roll a d6 in 40k per unit but instead a 3d6.

Rolled 4, 16, 19 = 39 (3d20)

Oh, but computer RNG is significantly worse?

The obvious solution is to play a different game, because that one's not very well designed. But failing that, I guess you could use different colored dice. 3 red d6s, 3 white d6s, 3 black d6s, etc. It'd still be plenty obnoxious though.

I hate these types of threads. Inevitably you get some retard who failed statistics trying to analyze why 3d6 is the same as a 1d20, ignoring that to get to their conclusion you have to double every roll, or flatten the 3d6 with a changing multiplier.

This has absolutely zero applicability. I could roll 1d20 and then consult a chart to convert my result to the appropriate number. Or I could just roll 3d6. The only fact that matters is that 3d6 presents a bell curve, and 1d20 doesn't. If your argument begins with 1d20 can sort of be like 3d6 if you apply a lot of mathematical operations to it, your argument has no relevance.

Would using 2d10 be less obnoxious? Are there any other ways to try and reduce the RNG in a game?

The bigger the die, the less a given rounded edge matters, was more my point. Roll a massive d20 1000 times, I bet the results will be more consistent. Or just use game science, fuck. Remember to shave down the 7, too.

d12+d8 averaged against a 5d4 roll averaged against a 2d10 roll averaged against an 3d6+1d2(coin flip) averaged against a d20, rolled in a vacuum chamber on polished nickel. It's the only way to play, really.

>Would using 2d10 be less obnoxious?
I mean, you're using fewer dice, so sure. I think the biggest step is between 1 die and 2, because you don't have to match up multiple dice in the first case. But 2 dice would be about half as obnoxious as 3, I would think (you only have to make one match-up, rather than two).

There are "averaging dice", d6s marked 2,3,3,4,4,5. There might be something similar for larger dice that would give you something closer to a normal distribution with a single die roll. Of course, then you'd have to have special dice to play the game, which is no big deal if it's just you and your crew playing it, but it obviously limits its accessibility for other people.

On the other hand, why do you need a normal distribution when you're rolling for a bunch of troops? The number of different rolls you're making should help provide some consistency--instead of a 3d6 roll, three separate d6 rolls.

I prefer 3d6 because it has 216 possible values, instead of just 20

chances on rolling certain result on any dice is always 50%. Either you get it or not.

3d6 or 1d20?

WRONG!

Correct answer: 2D10

>not using 1d4+1d6+1d8

show me the graphs of these my dudes, I'm intrigued

>not 1d12+1d10+1d8-1d6-1d4

...

The curve on 1d8+1d6+1d4 really isn't that different from 3d6. It's just ever-so-slightly less steep.

What program is this? I could use it for a lot of reasons
I think I like the d+'s more than 3d6 to be honest, it gives you a little bit more of a chance to get higher then average stats, without needing to do 4d6 drop lowest

Anydice.
anydice.com/program/a5b9

Honestly, 1d12+1d10+1d8-1d6-1d4 is looking pretty smooth. No dramatically steep changes, but tends towards middling value. I may use this in a computer game.

>If you simply double everything for the d20 (so that a +1 on 3d6 becomes a +2 on a d20),


........no

You mean 1d10+5.