If you want to know what is the smallest slice of numbers that occur the most often up to 50%, then sure, that works. I think everyone else assumed you meant "everything from this and higher is 50%", like a D&D Difficulty Class.
Oh, yeah, that's just 18. I didn't need a graph for that! No, I was trying to construct a mental image in my head of how often folks will roll within a certain range. Or rather, the reverse; what range will they tend to roll within about half the time. I'm trying to simulate in my head (prior to starting playtesting, which will simulate it in actuality) what will tend to happen at the game table.
OK, so if I add up:
10.03 + 10.03 + 9.45 + 9.45 8.37 + 8.37 I get 55.7%
So can I therefore say that - roughly half the time - a player will roll from 15-20?
(I think I output the graph wrong above - it should be highest at 18, no?)
(I think I output the graph wrong above - it should be highest at 18, no?)
Yes, that graph is inaccurate. 5d6 *cannot* give you a result of 2, 3, or 4, but it shows those with non-zero probability. Something is incorrect.
Your system is "roll 5d6, and beat a target number" right? And you'd like to know the probability that the player will succeed (or probability that they'll fail) yes?
No, I want to know what range of scores folks will fall within 50% of the time. We've established that's 15-20.
No, I want to know what range of scores folks will fall within 50% of the time. We've established that's 15-20.
Absolutely perfect - thank you! I used that, then put the results in Excel to make my own graph. That's exactly what I needed!
View attachment 59956
Just 5d6.