Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7448624" data-attributes="member: 6775031">It's not so much that it's more complicated, as it is that the complexity is less useful.Rolling 1d20, or 3d6, is a way of getting a number between one and twenty (give or take) in order to determine binary pass/fail. Using 3d6 rather than 1d20 is slightly more complicated, and you have somewhat more control over the results. (Which is a perfectly reasonable trade-off, as far as game design decisions go.) If you're okay with using 3d6 for skill checks, though, then that's already a concession that you're fine with the 3d6 level of complexity. Using a piecewise system of 3d6 for some checks and 1d20 for other checks is more complicated than just using 3d6 for everything (since you have that extra step in determining which dice to roll, before actually rolling), but it gives you less control (since attack rolls still have the flat distribution). From a game design perspective, you could reduce complexity and increase control by just using 3d6 for everything.To contrast, damage dice don't measure numbers in a consistent range. Rolling 2d6 gives damage roughly in the range of 1d12, but rolling 1d4 or 1d8 would not even be close. There's no simple way that you could resolve damage, and get numbers in those various ranges, while using the same die for everything. (I've seen systems where you effectively roll percentile to determine what fraction of the weapon's maximum damage you deal, but that's not nearly as simple as just rolling different dice in the first place.)Although, to be fair to the Devil in this example, the independent damage die is considered to be unnecessarily complex within certain circles of gaming. Many games try to simplify the whole process by using flat damage for each weapon, or by otherwise tying the damage roll into the attack check.</blockquote>

Verification