Implications of using this as a resolution system?
>>98503182I'll bite how would you get these odds with dice?
>>98503194Roll 3d20If there’s more odds than even, take the lowest d20If there’s more evens than odd, take the highest d20
>>98503182> And then...!> And I shit you not!> Nat-fucking-eleven!>> Noooooooo!Not sure if you understand the point of a bell curve, so either this is a weird way to have fun, or you tend to be at the extreme left of one.DESU, probably the first.
>>98503396i think he was asking for situations where it could be good, not for random bottom of the barrel memes with a number changed from 1 to 11
>>98503182this is genuinely hilarious anon don't pay attention to the retards who can't fathom your humor
>>98503182The point of the bell curve being in the middle means the average is most common, by making the extremes the most common, either every roll is bound to crit (one way or the other), or you change the system so you call high or low (21 or 0) and succeed or fail depending on the difference between what you got and what you chose, making each roll even more of a gamble, with your scores being more meaningless than usual.
>>98503421> Le green textDo YOU understand the concept, and reasons to have, bellcurves?>>98503580Not sure it was meant as a joke> Pic somewhat related
>>98503182>>98503351As retarded as this fucking is (too complicated for quick and fluid play), the implication is that - as the fucking chart describes - you will see more low and high rolls than average rolls, meaning the system will lean into the extremes. Congrats, you somehow made a worse resolution mechanic than 1d20.
>>98503182Why not just flip a coin at that point?
>>98503182Just flip a coin. That gives you the best inverse bell curve. Technically the best; the best kind of best.
>>98504551>Why not just flip a coin at that point?all rolls are a coinflipyou either succeed or you don't
>>98503182The only kind of system where something like that would maybe make sense is one where you can "oversuccess" at something, so you're kinda hoping at striking some golden balance in how well you doOr if you're playing a jinxed character that's supposed to have plenty of both extreme luck and extreme bad luck alternately
>>98503194You could just do 21-3d6.It would be a good system of you needed a lot of precision in your results. The probability difference between numbers near the center would be low, so you get more precision near that zone. Compare Vs 2d6, with 2d6 you want a roll of 7 to be in your favour, it's a big deal. But also compare to just rolling a d100, you could do that and have all the precision you want
>>98505478Tagli about a brainfart...To keep things simple, it could be done with If 3d6 =< 10, use 13 -3d6If 3d6 >10, use 31-3d6 All rolling the dice only once. That should make the right curve.Sorry, I need more coffee
>>98503182This is the type of dice curve rogue likes have
>>98503580I wasn't joking.
>>98503182>0..22Huh?Otherwise isn't this just the average rolls for your party in a d20 system?
>>98507734You’re on the left of the bell curve for sure
>>98505268>all rolls are a coinflip>you either succeed or you don'tno actually thats what makes dice cool, you can have degrees of success or "pushes" in some systems. I think that makes dice neet
>>98503943There's very little "reason" behind most attempts at justifying how the bellcurve is just so awesome compared to linear or triangular distributions: it's mostly fetishizing the idea of "predictability" when in most practical systems you can achieve that by properly setting the modifiers that go into the dice, while improper modifiers can make any dice "swingy". Also, it's impossible for a finite number of dice to achieve a "proper" bellcurve, since it's an infinite continuous distribution while any finite number of dice produces a finite discrete distribution.The shape of the probability distribution has some effects on gameplay, but it's mostly in what effect modifiers have (linear they're the same throughout, triangular/bellcurve it's more pronounced towards the middle, with an "inverse bellcurve" it would be more pronounced towards the extremes) and in determining the math you should be using.
>>98503182autism
>>98503194The simplest method is likely:3d6, if above 10 subtract 10, if below or equal to 10 add 10That way the edge values are most likelyIt is a kind of shitty system, because having probability in the center is a good thing
>>98503182>Implications of using this as a resolution system?Everything will now feel like a 50/50. See >>98504551.
>>98504512>Congrats, you somehow made a worse resolution mechanic than 1d20.That would be all of them, d20 reigns supreme.
>>98504512this is a good system if you have the brain of a gambling addict, though
that kinda looks like the side profile of a boob
>>98517525Hence why I called it worse than 1d20.>>98517509It's only worth using if you want full randomness. If you want a system with skills, stats, or any other form of mechanical investment into checks to have those investments matter at all, you want 2d10, maybe 3d6 depending on the modifiers.I've done this math before. With no modifiers, 2d10 loses to 3d6 and 1d20. 1d20 immediately loses this edge when you introduce modifiers, with 3d6 being the most consistent and 2d10 being second-most consistent.If your system is going to use anything other than a flat roll with no modifiers, you don't want a d20. You want multiple dice, either 2d10 or 3d6 (unless you're doing roll-under in which case that changes things of course). This ensures that investments players make into their characters are worth the cost, because they have a greater impact on the dice rolled.A D20 spits in the face of that and says "Your fighter with a +10 to hit? That doesn't matter, a peasant can hit you just as hard.".
