2026-08-03 Why I use 2d6 for my role-playing games these days
=============================================================

Recently I was complaining on fedi about old texts I had written and
offered 2d6 Math as an example. @randomwizard@vivaldi.net had a
different question, however: Given that the PDF talked a lot about
converting the rolls to percentages (and these being easier to reason
about for humans), why was I still arguing for using a 2d6 system
instead of a d100 system?

The argument I made in Grenzland zine No. 8 is that 2d6 forces you to
simplify because there are so few options. If "about 50% success" is
an interesting roll, and "near 100% success" is a boring roll, then
you have 7, 8, 9, 10 as interesting target numbers. Or a bonus of +1,
+2, +3. Typical changes in a role-playing game are level ups,
attribute increases, skill increases, magical bonuses, item bonuses…
but if you only have a range of 0 to 4, then something will have to
give. If you like this constraint, you can design a system without any
improvements at all and no magical bonuses -- like Classic Traveller
-- and none of the design pressure to give it more meaning.

If you like more differentiation, gradual improvements, tiny decisions
to switch equipment, improve those skills, lines going up, then as a
designer you absolutely should pick a d100 system.

#RPG #2d6