What you're talking about isn't merely bell curves rolling closer to average, you're assuming average rolls equal successes.
I am not assuming that at all. I'm stating that average rolls are more likely with a dice pool. If I can't convince you of this (or why it matters), then there is no point to this sub-thread.
I'll repeat the previous hint, more explicitly: if you're just going to keep repeating yourself, we should just agree to disagree and not derail the main thread.
Your take is correct when applied to a single roll in a single instance - percentage chance of success is percentage chance of success, however one gets to that percentage is irrelevant. For that specific roll.
A dice pool system or some other means of approaching a bell curve (it's worth noting that 3d6 methodologies do NOT produce a 'bell curve', only a very rough approximation. I'm not a statistician, but I know people who are tend to start seeing red when 3d6 is called a 'bell curve') means that a much larger majority of rolls made trend towards the average result. Over time, this results in characters being much more likely to succeed at easier tasks (i.e. things the DM makes you roll a Derp Check for), while being much less likely to succeed at tasks significantly beyond their capability. A DM can offset the inherent swinginess of a d20 check through DC manipulation, yes. However, a DM who does not prefer to do so or who is not great at doing so can cause issues, and let's be real here, Pang - no DM out there is generally willing to forego the "just roll a check for me to see if you flub it and I can narrate something that amuses me and humiliates you on a crit failure" Derp Check.
It's why there's such a sharp divide over people who enjoy the lolrandom chaos of a single d20 roll and people who enjoy the stability and predictability of a dice pool. The latter is usually favored by players who enjoy portraying their characters as skilled, highly competent professionals in whatever their specialty of choice is, while the former appeals more to gamblers, action-oriented players, and those who thrive on 'outlier' results. It's the same reason some people prefer to roll a Proficiency Die rather than accept the fixed proficiency number - predictability and stability bores them, they don't like it when someone announces an action, rolls the check, and succeeds at the action without fanfare.
There's a lot of mathematical arguments to make, but I think you may be being more dismissive than is warranted towards that 'subjective response' bit. This is a game - we play it to have fun and enjoy ourselves. The game's mechanics provide a specific feel, and that includes the dice and dice math. D&D 5e's singular d20 with low modifiers and very few ways to actively affect the roll leaves the game feeling very much like one is at the mercy of the RNGods. Just look at how pervasive Dice Juju and rolling superstitions are in this game, despite everyone playing it being (theoretically) a perfectly rational person that full well knows better. D&D just doesn't provide the game feel that your abilities or modifiers matter - that d20 is going to screw you over anyways, unless you appease it with elaborate rituals and an offering of Mountain Dew before the game.
I hate to break it to you, but every TTRPG pretty much works the exact same way.
Yeah that was my point exactly. I mean there are more collaborative TTRPGs out there that don't have a designated DM/GM and so avoid giving the majority of the creative power to just one player, but they'd still have most of these same issues to a greater or lesser extent (if they're even issues, I think said "issues" are what make TTRPGs awesome to begin with).
So... your argument for why D&D gets more hate than other systems is that it's just like other systems?
Might want to think that one through.
I think you've confused me with the OP of that argument, I was agreeing with IamSposta as to why the argument doesn't make much sense.
But it’s not “lolrandom chaos,” and it’s nothing to do with “fanfare.” The “derp check” is there because, sure, it’s technically possible to fail. But also because it’s a 5% chance, compared to a 95% chance you will succeed, and for those who use a “derp check,” they also generally could consider it a “huzzah check” because of that 5% chance you did it so good ain’t never been done that good before. So good it needs a cigaret. Then boon! But keep in mind, there are three different ways in 5e that is mitigated:
RAW it says not to do “derp checks” if it’s guaranteed either way. If the DC would be either so low or so high that either success or failure is guaranteed, skip the roll.
RAW it says not to use a “derp/huzzah” mechanic for anything other than Attacks or Death Saves.
Passive Scores. Absolutely why not use passive Stealth, Performance, Sleight of Hand, Survival, Nature, Carpenter's Tools, Navigator's Tools, whatever. That’s your “without even trying” score, anything lower than that in general is likely to succeed the vast majority of the time. So anything lower than that isn’t really worth calling for unless it’s: Time Sensitive, Important, and genuinely has a chance of failure. If you got all night to use your Alchemist's Supplies to make soap, and sufficient supplies, even the “derp check“ would get you “well… it looks mostly like soap, and it smells like soap, buuutt it didn’t solidify into a bar. You got liquid soap this time.” 🤷♂️ But honestly, you do that because it is funny. Otherwise you just say “yeah sure, you made soap.” 🤨 But if they need to make homemade hooch for Molotov cocktails and they only have 10 hours to do it… yeah, you better roll well unless there happen to already be fermented mash layin’ around. You could run the whole game off of nothing but passive scores and a sliding “derp—huzzah” scale and almost never roll if you wanted.
Heck you really want to err on the side of competence, replace every instance of “d20” with “4k3d6/4d6drop” (however you think of it) the same as character creation, and every instance of “1” with “3” and it would work. That is one of the advantages to the bounded accuracy system, the dice themselves become largely irrelevant, just the spread, and how flat a line you like. That’s all that matters. Heck, you could do 5d4 with the same 15 point spread that 3d6 gives, or even 6d4 and give it an 18 point spread and a way more accurate bell curve. You want to go more “accurate,” go to 8d4 and really rejigger things. It’s irrelevant which method gets used, just so long as everyone is playing by the same rules.
I think you've confused me with the OP of that argument, I was agreeing with IamSposta as to why the argument doesn't make much sense.
D'oh! Sorry about that
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Anything that gets big will get hate, that's just how it goes. Statistically, everyone loves it.
"Statistically" you will most likely get a bell curve (can we merge these subthreads?) with a small percentage of people loving it, a small percentage hating it and the vast majority of people being indifferent to it.
Now, that of course depends on your statistics. If you ask the people regularly posting on the dndbeyond forums? You can be sure that bell curve will be shifted a lot towards the "love it" side. If you ask random people on the streets, the bell curve will probably peak on the "indifferent" strongly and flatline in the "love" and "hate" sides. If you ask people in a fan forum of a crunchier system like Shadowrun the bell curve will probably shift to the "dislike / hate" side.
Which is an important thing to note. There's absolutely something like self-reinforcing opinion-bubbles in the internet and if you spent all your time in only one place it becomes super-easy to just accept a certain opinions as objective truth. E.g. the claim that 5e is the greatest game of all times and everyone except a few dozen grognards loves it.
I'd argue personally that the D&D hate isn't really so much about the system at all. Just as many people who have never played the game feel ill-disposed towards the D&D brand on account of omnipresent market saturation and some of WotC's practices, so they're more likely to notice and pick out flaws in other areas of the game (eg. the d20 system) than people who have loved the game for years. It's a proven principle that you're more likely to notice flaws in something you hate than something you're a fan of (or at least less willing to brush them off).
I'm not supporting or denying how valid the arguments are, they're just arguments I've heard personally more often than arguments about the system (which sparks debate, but not so much hate in my experience, at least not by itself). I agree that market saturation is a sign of D&D's success, I'm just saying the very act of it also paints a giant target on D&D's back for certain vocal minorities.
I also don't think I implied there was any correlation between market saturation and questionable practices, I intended those as two separate points (sorry for any confusion).
I am not assuming that at all. I'm stating that average rolls are more likely with a dice pool. If I can't convince you of this (or why it matters), then there is no point to this sub-thread.
I'll repeat the previous hint, more explicitly: if you're just going to keep repeating yourself, we should just agree to disagree and not derail the main thread.
Your take is correct when applied to a single roll in a single instance - percentage chance of success is percentage chance of success, however one gets to that percentage is irrelevant. For that specific roll.
A dice pool system or some other means of approaching a bell curve (it's worth noting that 3d6 methodologies do NOT produce a 'bell curve', only a very rough approximation. I'm not a statistician, but I know people who are tend to start seeing red when 3d6 is called a 'bell curve') means that a much larger majority of rolls made trend towards the average result. Over time, this results in characters being much more likely to succeed at easier tasks (i.e. things the DM makes you roll a Derp Check for), while being much less likely to succeed at tasks significantly beyond their capability. A DM can offset the inherent swinginess of a d20 check through DC manipulation, yes. However, a DM who does not prefer to do so or who is not great at doing so can cause issues, and let's be real here, Pang - no DM out there is generally willing to forego the "just roll a check for me to see if you flub it and I can narrate something that amuses me and humiliates you on a crit failure" Derp Check.
It's why there's such a sharp divide over people who enjoy the lolrandom chaos of a single d20 roll and people who enjoy the stability and predictability of a dice pool. The latter is usually favored by players who enjoy portraying their characters as skilled, highly competent professionals in whatever their specialty of choice is, while the former appeals more to gamblers, action-oriented players, and those who thrive on 'outlier' results. It's the same reason some people prefer to roll a Proficiency Die rather than accept the fixed proficiency number - predictability and stability bores them, they don't like it when someone announces an action, rolls the check, and succeeds at the action without fanfare.
There's a lot of mathematical arguments to make, but I think you may be being more dismissive than is warranted towards that 'subjective response' bit. This is a game - we play it to have fun and enjoy ourselves. The game's mechanics provide a specific feel, and that includes the dice and dice math. D&D 5e's singular d20 with low modifiers and very few ways to actively affect the roll leaves the game feeling very much like one is at the mercy of the RNGods. Just look at how pervasive Dice Juju and rolling superstitions are in this game, despite everyone playing it being (theoretically) a perfectly rational person that full well knows better. D&D just doesn't provide the game feel that your abilities or modifiers matter - that d20 is going to screw you over anyways, unless you appease it with elaborate rituals and an offering of Mountain Dew before the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think you've confused me with the OP of that argument, I was agreeing with IamSposta as to why the argument doesn't make much sense.
But it’s not “lolrandom chaos,” and it’s nothing to do with “fanfare.” The “derp check” is there because, sure, it’s technically possible to fail. But also because it’s a 5% chance, compared to a 95% chance you will succeed, and for those who use a “derp check,” they also generally could consider it a “huzzah check” because of that 5% chance you did it so good ain’t never been done that good before. So good it needs a cigaret. Then boon! But keep in mind, there are three different ways in 5e that is mitigated:
RAW it says not to do “derp checks” if it’s guaranteed either way. If the DC would be either so low or so high that either success or failure is guaranteed, skip the roll.
RAW it says not to use a “derp/huzzah” mechanic for anything other than Attacks or Death Saves.
Passive Scores. Absolutely why not use passive Stealth, Performance, Sleight of Hand, Survival, Nature, Carpenter's Tools, Navigator's Tools, whatever. That’s your “without even trying” score, anything lower than that in general is likely to succeed the vast majority of the time. So anything lower than that isn’t really worth calling for unless it’s: Time Sensitive, Important, and genuinely has a chance of failure. If you got all night to use your Alchemist's Supplies to make soap, and sufficient supplies, even the “derp check“ would get you “well… it looks mostly like soap, and it smells like soap, buuutt it didn’t solidify into a bar. You got liquid soap this time.” 🤷♂️ But honestly, you do that because it is funny. Otherwise you just say “yeah sure, you made soap.” 🤨 But if they need to make homemade hooch for Molotov cocktails and they only have 10 hours to do it… yeah, you better roll well unless there happen to already be fermented mash layin’ around. You could run the whole game off of nothing but passive scores and a sliding “derp—huzzah” scale and almost never roll if you wanted.
Heck you really want to err on the side of competence, replace every instance of “d20” with “4k3d6/4d6drop” (however you think of it) the same as character creation, and every instance of “1” with “3” and it would work. That is one of the advantages to the bounded accuracy system, the dice themselves become largely irrelevant, just the spread, and how flat a line you like. That’s all that matters. Heck, you could do 5d4 with the same 15 point spread that 3d6 gives, or even 6d4 and give it an 18 point spread and a way more accurate bell curve. You want to go more “accurate,” go to 8d4 and really rejigger things. It’s irrelevant which method gets used, just so long as everyone is playing by the same rules.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
D'oh! Sorry about that
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Anything that gets big will get hate, that's just how it goes. Statistically, everyone loves it.
"Statistically" you will most likely get a bell curve (can we merge these subthreads?) with a small percentage of people loving it, a small percentage hating it and the vast majority of people being indifferent to it.
Now, that of course depends on your statistics. If you ask the people regularly posting on the dndbeyond forums? You can be sure that bell curve will be shifted a lot towards the "love it" side. If you ask random people on the streets, the bell curve will probably peak on the "indifferent" strongly and flatline in the "love" and "hate" sides. If you ask people in a fan forum of a crunchier system like Shadowrun the bell curve will probably shift to the "dislike / hate" side.
Which is an important thing to note. There's absolutely something like self-reinforcing opinion-bubbles in the internet and if you spent all your time in only one place it becomes super-easy to just accept a certain opinions as objective truth. E.g. the claim that 5e is the greatest game of all times and everyone except a few dozen grognards loves it.
I'd argue personally that the D&D hate isn't really so much about the system at all. Just as many people who have never played the game feel ill-disposed towards the D&D brand on account of omnipresent market saturation and some of WotC's practices, so they're more likely to notice and pick out flaws in other areas of the game (eg. the d20 system) than people who have loved the game for years. It's a proven principle that you're more likely to notice flaws in something you hate than something you're a fan of (or at least less willing to brush them off).
I'm not supporting or denying how valid the arguments are, they're just arguments I've heard personally more often than arguments about the system (which sparks debate, but not so much hate in my experience, at least not by itself). I agree that market saturation is a sign of D&D's success, I'm just saying the very act of it also paints a giant target on D&D's back for certain vocal minorities.
I also don't think I implied there was any correlation between market saturation and questionable practices, I intended those as two separate points (sorry for any confusion).