Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 9113916" data-attributes="member: 50987">I think it's simpler than that: the roll itself just wasn't as important.In BECMI, dice rolls on the DM side of the screen were intended to be just numerical ranges--not probabilities.  The DM rolled 3d6 when they needed a random number between 3 and 18, not when they needed a bell curve with an average result of 10.5 and a 2% probability of minimum/maximum.  So it was perfectly reasonable for the DM to pick the number that worked best or, if they preferred, randomly determine one from the range however they liked.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Most of the numerical ranges in the monster stat block were stated just as ranges ("No. Appearing: 3-21") instead of a specified dice roll and bonus.  So it was left up to the DM to find a way to determine that number (in this case, you could roll 2d10+1, or you could roll 1d20+2 and ignore the result of 23, or you could just pick a number.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And all over the Dungeon Master's Rulebook, you'd find the phrase "roll or choose" for everything from monster damage and random encounters, to treasure table results and wand charges.</li> </ul>Nowadays, the distribution curve is the all-important driver behind "game balance" and "bounded accuracy" and whatever.  But back in the 1980s?  The likelihood of getting the minimum, maximum, or average result on any given roll just wasn't that important...and it was okay because the game was built to support that.</blockquote>

Verification