AD&D 1E What does this (d8, d6) dice notation mean in the DMG?

Mannahnin said:

I've encountered a few gamers over the years who used a d10 paired with a d6 (for high/low) in place of a d20.

Click to expand...

We did that back in the Very Dim Times because of the lack of D20's with separate numbers for 11-20, as you reference in the part I clipped. The habit probably stuck around for several years after that was no longer true.

Thomas Shey said:

We did that back in the Very Dim Times because of the lack of D20's with separate numbers for 11-20, as you reference in the part I clipped. The habit probably stuck around for several years after that was no longer true.

Click to expand...

My first Runequest set had the d20 labeled 0-9, twice.

pawsplay said:

My first Runequest set had the d20 labeled 0-9, twice.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was pretty much the default early on.

Thomas Shey said:

We did that back in the Very Dim Times because of the lack of D20's with separate numbers for 11-20, as you reference in the part I clipped. The habit probably stuck around for several years after that was no longer true.

Click to expand...

I met a few folks at a convention who were still doing it in the 2000s.

Willie the Duck said:

1d4+1d10 creates a heck of a flattened normal distribution. When do you suppose EGG thought it would see use?

Click to expand...

Good question.

I've used a d8+d10 table a couple of times, for a bell curve with a flattened middle (9, 10, 11 all equally likely at 10% each, 8 and 12 8.75% each, etc.) The AD&D Monster Manual 2 introduced charts using this combo, and linked them to monster frequency as follows:

2-3 very rare
4 very rare/rare
5-6 rare
7-8 uncommon
9-13 common
14-15 uncommon
16-17 rare
18-19 very rare/rare
20 very rare

GMMichael said:

So (d8, d6) means "d4 be damned!"

What was wrong with d20, reroll 17-20, I wonder?

Click to expand...

Two reasons I can think of:

1) It's more baroque, as @Parmandur wrote above.
2) You don't waste time re-rolling.
3) An almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Nikosandros said:

Two reasons I can think of:

1) It's more baroque, as @Parmandur wrote above.
2) You don't waste time re-rolling.
3) An almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Click to expand...

Add a couple more possibilities you have a nice random table right there.

I think option 2 might be the for-realsies reason in this instance: re-rolls aren't thst common in AD&D to my knowledge, and represents roll schemes have their own Baroque quality compared to a statistical spread of a single roll.

Just add four more items to the table.

aco175 said:

Likely the same as just making the charts 1-20 since we have that die. The new editions all seem to know this.

Weapons were the same thing with some dealing 2-5 instead if just 1d4 or 1d6.

Click to expand...

2-5 is the same average as d6 only with the ends filed off. Easy enough to do as d4+1.

Bill Zebub said:

Just add four more items to the table.

Click to expand...

Whenever I design a table for almost anything I always make the table's range either open-ended (meaning I might have to roll a d57 or something because right now the table only has 57 options) or bigger than the number of options with a gap included to allow for future expansion as ideas come to me, without having to rejig the whole table. Fortunately, modern electronic dice-rollers can handle a "die" of any size.

So for example on my greatly-expanded secondary skills/past professions table there's a gap - "if you roll in this gap, roll again" - for future expansion. The gap is smaller than it used to be as over the years some new professions have occurred to me and I added them in.

The occasional reroll this produces is, in aggregate, hugely less work than having to rejig the whole table to squeeze in a new option every time one arises.

Same principle arises if I need a d16 - I just roll a d20 and reroll 17-20 if it comes up.