What would you do?

[Beerf]

I'd say it was 2 as well but not because of math.

1,4 = 1
2,5 = 2
3,6 = 3

In my group we play like this. I believe this eliminates the rounding problens, and it works good for the other dice also.

Instead of saying some one is right or some one is wrong. Now you know this can be an issue, so before you play again just have the group decide which way you want to use.

 

[Crothian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you do?

For future reference, it would be simpler if you just said something like "What The Souljourner said."

By the time from me hitting reply, to it being posted Souljourner's post appeared.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

I think that when the form 1dX is used, it musy follow a linear pattern.

With 1d6, you get 16.67% chances of getting a 6 (or a 5, or a 4...), with 1d8, it's 12.50% of getting an 8, all the way up to 1d100 where you get 1% of ... you got the point long ago

Why would 1d3 give results based on another distribution than linear?

1d3 is not 1d6 halved. It's rolling a random number that will provide 3 on 33.33% of times (same goes for 2 and 1).

Of course, your DM is allowed to give another interpretation, which becomes a rule in his game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: What would you do?

I know of a 3rd method that one of the DMs in our group uses for d3s. You roll a d6; 1 and 4 = 1, 2 and 5 = 2, and 3 and 6 = 6. Notice something familiar? The results are identical to your DMs method, which is roll and divide by 2, rounding down.

Uh, no, the results are completely different to his DM's method.

As people have pointed out, if you use a d6-divide-by-2-round-down-minimum-of-1, your results are skewed : 50% 1, 33% 2, 17% 3.

Now, I can simulate a d3 perfectly well using a d12. But if I use d12-divide-by-4-round-down-minimum-of-1, then my results are 58% 1, 33% 2, 8% 3.

If you want to divide, it's fine... but for a linear curve, you need to subtract 1 from your roll, then divide and round down, then add 1... or simply divide and round up. Either works just fine.

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: What would you do?

Uh, no, the results are completely different to his DM's method.

Uh, yes. I noticed.

As people have pointed out

Makes me wonder why it's being pointed out again then. Seriously though, I see what their DM was going for, even though he couldn't explain it properly to them. Myself, I like using the 123123 method, but that's just me. Which one do you favor?

 

[aliensex]

Sheesh, what an argument! It seems that it would be more than worth going to your local hobby shop, and springing the 25 cents on a bloody D3 and put an end to it!


P.S. Your DM was wrong. Your playing the game to, your opinion is perfectly valid, so argue away. Just keep things in perspective, and know who ultimately has the final say.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you do?

Seriously though, I see what their DM was going for, even though he couldn't explain it properly to them.

Well, the DM in question was just flat-out in error, as evidenced by his admitting the mistake on further reflection.

The only way his "divide by two" system could work (and would make a third, also legitimate system), is if the lowest value (0 = 1/2) was ultimately read as being the highest value (3) -- just like the "00" on percentile dice is read as being "100". But, no one in this discussion has suggested that was his intention.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you do?

Well, the DM in question was just flat-out in error, as evidenced by his admitting the mistake on further reflection.

He was in error about halving the die, yes, but any way you look at it, he was not in error by ruling that a 5 equals a 2. I think he just saw someone use the 123123 method and misinterpretted it to mean you divide the result by two. He had it right, since in the 123123 method, 4=1, 5=2, and 6=3. Like I said, he just couldn't explain himself properly, but the method is sound.

Really, what this boils down to is that the players wanted to use the 112233 method, since that would yield a better result on a roll of a 5, but by using the 123123 method, which is perfectly legitimate, the result would be lower on a 5, which equals a 2. Either method works, but really, I think it just boils down to someone getting upset because one method yields a better result, in that instance, than the other.

No matter which way you cut it, he was correct in his ruling of a 5 on a d3. If a 4 had been rolled and he ruled it a 2, then he would have been wrong, but he still wasn't wrong about the 5.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you do?

He was in error about halving the die, yes, but any way you look at it, he was not in error by ruling that a 5 equals a 2. I think he just saw someone use the 123123 method and misinterpretted it to mean you divide the result by two.

I totally disagree. It was not even remotely suggested by the original post that the DM was trying to use the 123123 progression, or was referring to it, or had seen it before.

The DM was very adamant on the idea that a d3 is just a d6 halved.

This DM was absolutely planning on ruling that roll of 4 was equal to a result of 2.

 

[Dingleberry]

So am I the only one who just rolls a d4 and rerolls 4s?