Top Ten Terrible Things In This Hobby: #0 Will Amaze You!

[Kobold Catgirl]

EileenProphetofIstus wrote:

Completely sacrilegious KC, such dice should not exist and I back up your crusade to rid the world of these abominations.

I'm glad to hear someone is seeing sense here. The rest of you people could learn a thing from this poster!

[Goddity]

I don't want to be that guy, but where are things 1-10?

[Scythia]

Goddity wrote:

I don't want to be that guy, but where are things 1-10?

Don't worry, you're not that guy this guy is.

[GM_Beernorg]

Well played Scythia, well played...

[hasteroth]

see a 6 sided D3 makes sense, since a 3 sided D3 is a bit more complicated to make... but a 20 sided D10? Seriously wtf?

[Das Bier]

d10's are already 20 sided. They just exaggerate 10 of the sides and really shrink the other 10 so things don't land on them. i.e. d10's are warped d20's.

[Sissyl]

Well, if you count removing half the sides and reshaping the remaining from equilateral triangles to irregular quadrangles, then yes. I would still say no.

[hasteroth]

Das Bier wrote:

d10's are already 20 sided. They just exaggerate 10 of the sides and really shrink the other 10 so things don't land on them. i.e. d10's are warped d20's.

In the same way that a D20 is just an exaggerated D4, with more steps in between.

[Das Bier]

No, actually. A d20 is a logical geometric hedron built outwards from a d12. I saw my geometry professor build one...basically you inset toothpicks at the 'corners' of the d12, and they become the 'faces' of the d20.

d10's are made by taking the 'middle band' of the d20 and compressing them down to too small to be rolled on.

[Krensky]

Yes, and a coffee cup and a donut are the same thing.

[Squirrelshades]

If you can't make it in cube shape, it's not worth being called dice.

[KenderKin]

Squirrelshades wrote:

If you can't make it in cube shape, it's not worth being called dice.

In extreme circumstances the game can be played without all the other dice......d6's can work

[Terquem]

In extreme cases the game can be played without polyhedrons of any kind...

1979 -

For a period in 1979, TSR experienced a dice shortage. Basic sets published during this time frame came with two sheets of numbered cutout cardstock chits that functioned in lieu of dice, along with a coupon for ordering dice from TSR.[6] The rulebook also included a brief sample dungeon with a full-page map. Starting with the fourth printing in 1978, the two booklets of maps, encounter tables, and treasure lists were replaced with the module B1 In Search of the Unknown;[2] printings six through eleven (1979–1982) featured the module B2 The Keep on the Borderlands instead.[2]

- Wikipedia article "D&D Basic Set"

[Tacticslion]

Huh. We just use the "guess a number plus roll-over" game.

GM: "Choose a number between 1-20." Mentally chooses seven.
Player: "Fifteen."
GM: "Fifteen plus seven is twenty-two. You rolled a two."

[Snowblind]

If we want to get super technical, you can generate a random number that follows the desired probability curve to within an arbitrary level of precision with any source of randomness, so long as the probabilistic behavior of the source of randomness is known.

As a vaguely practical example, you can use a coin to generate a d20. {N} coin flips gets you {N} digits of a base 2 number, so you can simulate a d32(or a d10000b2) with 5 coin flips. d32, reroll anything over 20 is equivalent to a d20.

Tacticslion wrote:

Huh. We just use the "guess a number plus roll-over" game.

GM: "Choose a number between 1-20." Mentally chooses seven.
Player: "Fifteen."
GM: "Fifteen plus seven is twenty-two. You rolled a two."

I would genuinely be interested in how "random" that would tend to be. My intuition says that certain numbers would be picked much more often than others, because humans are terrible random number generators and think nonsensical things like (for example) that certain numbers are more "random" than others.

[Tacticslion]

We find it handy when we don't have dice. It's fun. :)

[thejeff]

Snowblind wrote:

If we want to get super technical, you can generate a random number that follows the desired probability curve to within an arbitrary level of precision with any source of randomness, so long as the probabilistic behavior of the source of randomness is known.

As a vaguely practical example, you can use a coin to generate a d20. {N} coin flips gets you {N} digits of a base 2 number, so you can simulate a d32(or a d10000b2) with 5 coin flips. d32, reroll anything over 20 is equivalent to a d20.

Tacticslion wrote:

Huh. We just use the "guess a number plus roll-over" game.

GM: "Choose a number between 1-20." Mentally chooses seven.
Player: "Fifteen."
GM: "Fifteen plus seven is twenty-two. You rolled a two."

I would genuinely be interested in how "random" that would tend to be. My intuition says that certain numbers would be picked much more often than others, because humans are terrible random number generators and think nonsensical things like (for example) that certain numbers are more "random" than others.

I suspect the individual numbers chosen aren't very random, but having 2 people doing it probably helps a lot.

[Krensky]

It doesn't work like that. The moment you have one determistic event in the mix the end result will never be random.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

It doesn't work like that. The moment you have one determistic event in the mix the end result will never be random.

Well, that in the simplest sense is obviously false.

But yeah, not really random. Better pseudo-randomness than one person doing it, even if he's trying to be random (not cheating, essentially). More closely approximating a real random spread.

[Krensky]

No, it's not.

A determistic system can not produce random results. So the moment any part of your system to generate random numerous is deterministc, it incapable of producing actually random numbers.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

No, it's not.

A determistic system can not produce random results. So the moment any part of your system to generate random numerous is deterministc, it incapable of producing actually random numbers.

Exactly. Just like the computer random number generator here. Or pretty much anywhere else. (unless you've got actual hardware observing some kind of real randomness.)

However, there are better and worse forms of pseudo-randomness.

[Distant Scholar]

Krensky wrote:

No, it's not.

A determistic system can not produce random results. So the moment any part of your system to generate random numerous is deterministc, it incapable of producing actually random numbers.

This is completely, and utterly, false. Sorry.

If all of it is deterministic, then there is no randomness, but even a little randomness will usually make it random (with some distribution).

Don't make me break out my math Ph.D. thesis.