# From D&D to Savage Worlds: What am I missing?



## fuzzlewump (Jun 24, 2010)

My current gaming group that I've had for many years at home has only played D&D together, from 2e on up to 4e. Most of us have had brief stints of playing other popular games in other groups (Vampire, Exalted, Spirit of the Century) but in our group it has really only been D&D. That is, until I recently bought Savage Worlds and played two sessions with my group.

So, we are all generally more mechanically focused with a strong bias for combat. And, after running about 6 combats in Savage Worlds I am not impressed. I can see how the simplicity of the system can be an Edge, but for me it's a Major Hindrance. For a group that already knows and loves D&D 4e, a much more complex (more pages) game than Savage Worlds, is there any benefit to playing the lighter Savage Worlds?

What we enjoyed most about the couple sessions of Savage Worlds is the modern, quirky setting heavily inspired and stolen from the "Mother" series of video game RPG's as well as the characters. The mechanics worked really well, but it felt like more had to be put into the game to have fun. A game like 4e, while you have a lot more fun with good roleplaying and setting immersion, you still have a bare amount of fun just mechanically playing it like a wargame or board game or whatever. With Savage Worlds, I do not get the same vibe.

So, given these circumstances, is there any reason we should be playing Savage Worlds instead of D&D? Something about the rules or... something that I should sorely miss? My fellow players and I seem to agree that what we had fun with the most in Savage Worlds, roleplaying and investigation, could easily be done in D&D while also having a very robust combat system we enjoy. Is the answer simply different strokes: some people like Savage Worlds combat much more than D&D but find them both to be complex and interesting?

Let me know what you think.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Is the answer simply different strokes: some people like Savage Worlds combat much more than D&D but find them both to be complex and interesting?



Yes, absolutely.  D&D combat is not objectively better, and many gamers find it fiddly, obsessive, wargamey or otherwise not what they want from an RPG.  I personally know several gamers who strongly prefer the SW mechanics to the D&D mechanics.  In fact, in some ways, I do to, although I stick with D&D for other reasons.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> So, given these circumstances, is there any reason we should be playing Savage Worlds instead of D&D? Something about the rules or... something that I should sorely miss? My fellow players and I seem to agree that what we had fun with the most in Savage Worlds, roleplaying and investigation, could easily be done in D&D while also having a very robust combat system we enjoy. Is the answer simply different strokes: some people like Savage Worlds combat much more than D&D but find them both to be complex and interesting?




Definitely different strokes for different folks.

I think it may be more correct to say some folks like Savage Worlds (in its entirety, not just the combat) more than D&D (in its entirety, not just the combat).


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 24, 2010)

I recently switched. SW works very well in D&D's place, in my opinion. What I liked:


 From the player side, it still kinda feels like 3.5. Wizards feel like wizards, characters with Sweep feel like fighters with cleave. Yeah, they are different, but SW feels closer to older versions than 4.0 (not saying anything bad about 4.0, just acknowledging 4.0 plays different than older editions)
 From the GM side, it feels like 4.0 - quick to build creatures, Extras and Wilds can play like Minions -> Solos. Prep times is much improved over 3.5.
 Acing/exploding dice are just pure fun (well, until it happens to you ). The game has more "swing" with exploding dice and bennies to offset them. Some people love this, some people hate it
 Love the Hindraces - I have noticed an uptick in inter-party roleplay. While some of it is to play for bennies, some of it is just a different hook on the character than they may have thought up under D&D.

One of the biggest selling points for me is that the core system runs well under different genres. In the past, I did not want to do anything else - I was not interested in fussing with a new system. Now, I can jump into Deadlands or Weird War II without having to drag the group along with new rules.


----------



## Rel (Jun 24, 2010)

I'm a very big fan of both systems.  My current campaign is a Deadlands Savage Worlds game and my previous campaign was a 4e D&D game.

Savage Worlds is unquestionably more rules light (though not nearly as light as some systems) than D&D and if you want more "crunch" then D&D is definitely the way to go.  Personally I've been in the mood lately for a lighter game and I'm loving Savage Worlds for what it brings to the table.

There are a few things in particular that I think it does extremely well:

Prep is EASY - As easy as 4e made prepping for my games, I find that Savage Worlds is even a bit easier due to the granularity of the system.  It is (for me) very easy to envision where a bad guy falls on the spectrum of stats and skills and so I very rarely need to flesh anything out about the bad guys and can more or less "wing it".  The "special abilities" of monsters are likewise easy to throw together quickly and adjudicate easily on the fly.

Running it is EASY - Savage Worlds has almost zero fat on the system.  I am virtually never left wondering how I should resolve a particular action or circumstance because the core mechanic is strong and there is nearly always an obvious answer.  There is very little in the way of looking stuff up in a book (though I think this is true of 4e too but for different reasons).

The dice mechanic is FUN - What I've noticed about any game that uses "exploding dice" is that whenever anybody rolls for any reason, everybody at the table takes interest in the roll.  When they see those boxcars coming up on the d6's then they start to cheer because they know that the PC in question is about to be wildly successful at whatever they are doing.  This sort of group "cheerleading" seems to raise the excitement and fun level for everybody at the table.  (I also note that I stole an exploding dice mechanic from an ENWorlder to use for skills in my 4e game and it had the same effect.  But that's a topic for another thread probably.)

It is FAST - I really enjoy the tactical combats of 4e.  But there is no question in my mind that they take up considerable time.  I'm in no way suggesting that that time isn't fun but it does dictate the pace of the game in some ways.  I can generally get through more plot in a Savage Worlds session than I can a 4e session because the combats are quicker (and often deadlier).

I love the damage mechanic - I'm actually fairly bullish on the damage mechanic of 4e too.  But I really like the Savage Worlds damage mechanic which results in combat sometimes feeling very dangerous without the PC's ever even taking any lasting damage.  Being Shaken while next to some big bad guy who might kill you in one hit feels dangerous and exciting.  But you might get hit several times by that baddie and come out of the combat without ever having taken a Wound.  I also note that, while Shaken is a sort of "stun" mechanic which may cost you your turn, the turns go quickly in Savage Worlds and so it doesn't feel like that great a punishment.

Range of settings - This is probably one of the single biggest things in favor of Savage Worlds.  4e does an extremely good job in my opinion of emulating "Heroic Fantasy".  But I think you've really got to work at it to make it do much else.  Savage Worlds has a wide range of settings available to it that range all over the place.  At the heart of it I feel like it's a Pulp game first.  But there are a lot of settings that feel right with Pulp and I love Pulp anyway so what the hell.


So bottom line is that you should play whatever works best for your group and what makes you happy.  But I happen to think that Savage Worlds makes a great "unisystem" for those times when somebody has an idea for a setting or game that isn't already in print.

One final thing I'll say in favor of Savage Worlds over D&D 4e is that SW is a better one-shot game for Cons and Game Days IMHO.  The learning curve for 4e isn't so much about the system.  It's about the character.  Especially if you are giving the players PC's above 10th level, it can take quite a while before a player gets a good grasp on exactly what their character can do.  And even once that happens then you have the issue of the combats running longer to make use of that range of abilities, leaving less room for "plot".

Savage Worlds characters are generally easy to grasp and have only a few special rules to add complexity.  So it's easier to hit the ground running.  And the faster combats mean that more involved plots are easier to work through during a typical 4 hour session.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Definitely different strokes for different folks.
> 
> I think it may be more correct to say some folks like Savage Worlds (in its entirety, not just the combat) more than D&D (in its entirety, not just the combat).





Definitely agree.  We've played SW several times and our group has mixed feelings.  2-3 like/love it, 2-4 don't mind it, 1 hates it.

So it is a matter of preference.  We've used SW for short one-shot games and it works very well for those.  The group prefers D&D for the long term campaign.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2010)

Rel said:


> I'm a very big fan of both systems.  My current campaign is a Deadlands Savage Worlds game and my previous campaign was a 4e D&D game.




Hm.  I'm running classic Deadlands.  We ought to start trading plotlines...


----------



## Rel (Jun 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Hm.  I'm running classic Deadlands.  We ought to start trading plotlines...




I'm running Deadlands:  Reloaded.

Mine is currently set in Deadwood and is vulgar beyond belief.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2010)

My players are currently hanging around Dodge.  Not so much on the vulgarity - unless the Jupiter Cannon isn't what the players think it is


----------



## Votan (Jun 24, 2010)

amerigoV said:


> [*] Acing/exploding dice are just pure fun (well, until it happens to you ). The game has more "swing" with exploding dice and bennies to offset them. Some people love this, some people hate it.




I've noticed that, contrary to my expectations, people seem to like an occasional unexpected result (to groan over or celebrate).  I have seen the same thing in Rolemaster where the open ended dice seem to greatly increase the excitement of combat by adding that element of risk.

4E has a very different design where it takes a lot of bad rolls or an extremely tough encounter to generate the same sense of risk.


----------



## Rel (Jun 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> My players are currently hanging around Dodge.  Not so much on the vulgarity - unless the Jupiter Cannon isn't what the players think it is




Maybe a RBDM thread is in order for us.  I'll check to see if you started one when I get back from work this afternoon and may start one myself if you haven't.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 24, 2010)

I tried SW, didn't like it. There weren't a lot of explicit options in combat or in exploration situations, and I found it mathematically naive. 

However, the game was explicitly designed to work on a miniatures-play level, so the experience that it's not a good slug-out game is probably more your personal experience than a generalizable quality.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jun 24, 2010)

Couple things
1. Savage Worlds is designed for fast, furious, fun. If you like your combats to take an hour this is not the game for you. If you want to be able to do some nifty combat maneuvers for 3 rounds and then move on with the story Savage Worlds MAY be for you. 

2. If you like minis I would check out the fan made miniatures combat rules off savage heros. One of Savage Worlds big strengths in the fan content.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 24, 2010)

Thanks for the responses so far.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> However, the game was explicitly designed to work on a miniatures-play level, so the experience that it's not a good slug-out game is probably more your personal experience than a generalizable quality.



Not that it's a bad slug-out game, just that it's a boring one for our group. I agree completely that are not enough explicit options in combat. I think it's really good mechanically but would only be fun, in my opinion, with a fair amount of player input. You know, describing maneuvers and roleplaying during combat. That was indeed when it was fun for me, becuase the mechanics are incredibly generic on their own (by design.)



			
				MortonStromgal said:
			
		

> 1. Savage Worlds is designed for fast, furious, fun. If you like your combats to take an hour this is not the game for you. If you want to be able to do some nifty combat maneuvers for 3 rounds and then move on with the story Savage Worlds MAY be for you.



True, they resolved fairly quickly even though we were hobbling our way through a new system. However, houseruling D&D to 1/2 HP and double damage solved the time issue and the riskiness for us and left the robust combat system in place. 

In an unrelated note, how are you supposed to make balanced encounters? That was probably the worst part for me. There's no advice at all on how to do that. And by balanced I mean fun. A challenge, with a chance of death, but beatable.


----------



## Asmor (Jun 24, 2010)

One thing I'd recommend is the use of more forces. The first SW game I ran was set in their Necropolis setting, where the PCs each were lieutenants and each had 2 or 3 soldiers they controlled in addition.

The net result was that the battles were large, i.e. as many as 15 people on each side, and still played fast.


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 24, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> In an unrelated note, how are you supposed to make balanced encounters? That was probably the worst part for me. There's no advice at all on how to do that. And by balanced I mean fun. A challenge, with a chance of death, but beatable.




There is a thread on their board about it. Mostly, you take a quick look at average attack dice vs. Parry and damage vs. Toughness. It is hard to create a CR type system because it is not classed based. Someone can be mostly skills and not combat focus (they would rely on Tricks/Test of Wills to help in combat). Others are combat beasts (if you want, you can be pretty kick ass at very low "levels").

Overall, SW plays in a narrower range. 3.5 you went from bumpkin to god. SW you good from pretty good to very good. Low XP parties can take down pretty tough stuff with some good tactics. On the other hand, weak stuff can hammer you if you use bad tactics or some bad die rolls.

I find there is a wide varity of options in combat. They tend not to be boxed up as nicely as D&D has done in 3.5 and 4.0. But they are there. Ranged weapons can be deadly, which opens up a lot of tactical options. Gang up, tricks/test of wills, etc all feed into it.

Oh, one last think on balance - it really is not as important. XP is not given based on defeating critters. So, the GM can build encounters that push along the story (evil cultists, chases, etc) and have the cinematic/challenging combat with more polish at the appropriate spot.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 24, 2010)

I just played my first SW game about a night ago (Deadlands: Reloaded).  I'm used to use descriptive-heavy instead of mechanics-heavy combat, so it fit right into my style.  The three other players seemed to enjoy it as well, but perhaps not as much as I did.

I do find that making off-the-cuff stuff seems incredibly easier than the 3E I'm used to, and is about as easy as 4E.  The quick combats I greatly enjoy over 4E (which seems to move at a snail's pace to me).  However, I think I've been spoiled timewise since I've been running WoD games for quite a long time now.

As far as combat options go, I haven't seen an option I miss in SW from D&D so far.  Grapple, trip, ranged combat, melee combat and all of that is there and a viable choice (including called shots and lingering effects) so I don't understand the comment of it being lacking, if someone wants to explain it further.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 24, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> As far as combat options go, I haven't seen an option I miss in SW from D&D so far.  Grapple, trip, ranged combat, melee combat and all of that is there and a viable choice (including called shots and lingering effects) so I don't understand the comment of it being lacking, if someone wants to explain it further.




Perhaps some of the options aren't as immediately obvious? For example, IIRC, there's no section labeled "Trip" in SW:EE. (Or I'm completely misremembering.  )


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 25, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> As far as combat options go, I haven't seen an option I miss in SW from D&D so far.  Grapple, trip, ranged combat, melee combat and all of that is there and a viable choice (including called shots and lingering effects) so I don't understand the comment of it being lacking, if someone wants to explain it further.



For me it's that your options change only a little with time. My non-spellcasting players made the comment that what they did the first session is what they're going to do the entire span of the game. Coming from a game like 4E D&D this seems like a problem, because there's always a new power (combat option) to look forward to when leveling up in 4E.

Comparing fighting-men between SW and 3E D&D, yeah, the important options seem to be well represented.


----------



## Shades of Green (Jun 25, 2010)

How does SW work for a smaller-than-average groups of players? IIRC this is one of the problems with later-edition D&D. I usually end up with two or three PCs in the party...


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 25, 2010)

Shades of Green said:


> How does SW work for a smaller-than-average groups of players? IIRC this is one of the problems with later-edition D&D. I usually end up with two or three PCs in the party...




Pretty good, actually. If you look at published modules, they automatically scale the opposition to the party size. For example "there are 2 Nazi goons per Character". Rule of thumb for a good fight is 1 Wild per PC or 2 Extras per PC. 

With a smaller group, you can look to the Pulp Rules on Triple Ace Games site. They tone down the Extras a touch (no Exploding damage dice) and provide an extra bennie for fights. Those minor changes would help if you only had a couple of players.

Also, with a smaller group, you can give them their own Extras to fill out any missing roles (healer, for example). Extras run quick, so they are not a burden overall.


----------



## Rel (Jun 25, 2010)

Shades of Green said:


> How does SW work for a smaller-than-average groups of players? IIRC this is one of the problems with later-edition D&D. I usually end up with two or three PCs in the party...




I'm running a Savage Worlds fantasy game for my wife and daughter and it is working out great.  The party is just their two PC's as well as my daughter's character's "pet baby dragon".

I've been running them through one of the Goodman Games - Dungeon Crawl Classic modules that I'm converting on the fly (which has been a breeze).  Normally I just reduce the number of bad guys by 1 or 2 in a given fight if they are rank and file Extra types.  For major bad guys I just eyeball the stats such that I think it'll give them a good challenge and go from there.

One thing I've noticed about Savage Worlds baddies is that it is sometimes better to underpower them a bit and make up for it by spending GM bennies on their behalf.  At least that's what I'd recommend until you get a pretty good grasp on the way it runs.


----------



## Rel (Jun 25, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I found it mathematically naive.




Also, I'm really curious as to what you mean about this, pawsplay.  Not defensive.  Just curious.  If you're still checking the thread I'd love to hear more.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 25, 2010)

Rel said:


> Also, I'm really curious as to what you mean about this, pawsplay.  Not defensive.  Just curious.  If you're still checking the thread I'd love to hear more.




Ok, well I don't want to go spewing a lot of comments, just because it's been a long time and I don't want to misstate. I remember noticing the exploding dice rolls and becoming curious how that would work out with some of the more common TNs. I figured out that for many routine tasks, d4s were better than d6s. Uh, here's some math someone else did:

Exploding dice, and some unexpected results for Savage Worlds

I also looked at some of the Edges and decided they were priced fairly arbitrarily.


----------



## Rel (Jun 25, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Ok, well I don't want to go spewing a lot of comments, just because it's been a long time and I don't want to misstate. I remember noticing the exploding dice rolls and becoming curious how that would work out with some of the more common TNs. I figured out that for many routine tasks, d4s were better than d6s. Uh, here's some math someone else did:
> 
> Exploding dice, and some unexpected results for Savage Worlds
> 
> I also looked at some of the Edges and decided they were priced fairly arbitrarily.




I hadn't seen that particular analysis but we've discussed how the probabilities work amongst our group and noted the bit about how smaller dice are more likely to ace, etc.  I consider this to be a pretty minor issue for a few reasons.

First, the baseline target number for success on most (non combat) checks is a 4.  If you're trying to achieve a 4 then a d6 is plainly superior to a d4.  To get a "Raise" (4 points higher than your target number) then a d6 is still superior to a d4.  Now if there are modifiers to the roll such that you're at -2 and your target number effectively becomes a 6 then mathematically you're better off rolling the d4.  Looking at the chart produced in that analysis we see that this circumstance (where the target number is the highest value on the larger of the two dice being compared) is the only "crossover point" where the lower die produces (very slightly) superior results.

But that circumstance doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Looking at the chart once again we see that a d8 is always superior to a d4, no matter the target number.  In order to get a d8 in a skill you must first raise it to a d6.  So, at worst, a d6 could be considered a stepping stone from the d4 to the d8, which is superior to the d4 in almost (but not quite) every situation.

In addition keep in mind that the player may be able to influence the target number in question and move it off of the "bad spot" in the mathematical progression.  If they know they are shooting for a target number of 8 using a d8 then they might decide to make the roll harder (by adding in a Called Shot penalty) or easier (making a Wild Attack for example).

And also there is the Wild Die.  Almost any time a player rolls he'll also be rolling a Wild Die, which is always a d6.  This doesn't influence the probabilities on the other die of course but I think it introduces some additional "background noise" in which small vagaries in the probability of the other die can become lost.

I say none of that in order to prove you wrong because you're not wrong.  I mostly typed that out to help organize my thoughts about why I consider this a corner case that doesn't have any substantial impact on game play.

As to the thing about "Edges priced arbitrarily" I'm not sure exactly what you mean because all Edges are priced the same (provided you meet the prerequisites, which is maybe what you are referring to).  If you mean that some Edges are "better" than others, I'd probably agree with that in the sense that some will be more frequently useful or provide more benefit when they are used than others.  But I think that's going to be the case in pretty much any game with a similar mechanic (like Feats in D&D) so I don't think of it as much of a problem.

Anyway, thanks very much for taking the time to explain what you meant.  It definitely prompted me to take a closer look at it.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 25, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Perhaps some of the options aren't as immediately obvious? For example, IIRC, there's no section labeled "Trip" in SW:EE. (Or I'm completely misremembering.  )




This is a Trick, you would do an Agility trick to trip someone up.   Savage Worlds doesn't define Trip, Shove, Push, Pull, Run Between Their Legs, Feint, and The Ol' Rope-a-Dope.  Those are all Agility tricks.  There's a lot of different kinds of these.  I recall one character in Slipstream (sort of Flash Gordony) who would use her Taunt skill in combat, flashing some cleavage or leg to distract the enemy!  Worked well in that genre, felt very pulp adventure/barbarella.

Another example, in our Evil League of Evil game my mummy wizard appeared before some ogres and said 'Look ogres, my legions of the dead march from the woods!  You're doomed!'  Roll my Smarts against theirs, and one of the ogres was Shaken, busy looking for undead from the trees while my minions(okay, not really minions, the other PCs) attacked them!

Go to their web site and download the Combat Survival Guide.  Very handy guide to making combat survivable and more engaging.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jun 25, 2010)

amerigoV said:


> Oh, one last think on balance - it really is not as important. XP is not given based on defeating critters. So, the GM can build encounters that push along the story (evil cultists, chases, etc) and have the cinematic/challenging combat with more polish at the appropriate spot.




/This

Also knowing your players stats can be important for a good sword fight. So if your Fighter has a d10 the BBEG right hand guy may have a D12 etc. Personaly, I find the CR system to be largely fictional to begin with as I have seen a Balor killed by a party of lvl 1s and Kobolds take out a party of lvl 7 PCs. Regardless dont worry too much about balance up front. Much like D&D there is a learning curve.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 25, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> This is a Trick, you would do an Agility trick to trip someone up.  Savage Worlds doesn't define Trip, Shove, Push, Pull, Run Between Their Legs, Feint, and The Ol' Rope-a-Dope.




Right. But if you're brand new to SW, you might not immediately make that connection, and thus you might think, "Gee, there aren't a lot of options here." 

That's why the Combat Survival Guide & threads like this are handy.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 26, 2010)

MortonStromgal said:


> Personaly, I find the CR system to be largely fictional to begin with as I have seen a Balor killed by a party of lvl 1s ...




That's unsettling...I've personally been in a group of level 1's that subdued a black dragon at 1st level in a basic game (waaaaay back at the start of the 80's), but could you elaborate on the Balor's defeat - was it luck or manipulating the system?

Anyways, sort of back on topic, having recently just purchased the SWSE Clone Wars book and glancing at the mass combat rules, I was wondering - has anyone attempted to run a Star Wars Savage Worlds game?  It seems the two would work very easily together.  I could almost imagine using either the psionic or super powers edge to emulate jedi...


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 26, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Anyways, sort of back on topic, having recently just purchased the SWSE Clone Wars book and glancing at the mass combat rules, I was wondering - has anyone attempted to run a Star Wars Savage Worlds game?  It seems the two would work very easily together.  I could almost imagine using either the psionic or super powers edge to emulate jedi...




Savageheroes.com has conversions of all sorts of stuff. 

Here is someone's latest attempt for SW:SW game (Star Wars:Savage Worlds):
http://www.savageheroes.com/conversions/Savage-Star-Wars-6.0.pdf


----------



## Votan (Jun 26, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> That's unsettling...I've personally been in a group of level 1's that subdued a black dragon at 1st level in a basic game (waaaaay back at the start of the 80's), but could you elaborate on the Balor's defeat - was it luck or manipulating the system?




Yeah, I am kinda of curious myself.  It is hard to see how a first level party (unless there is an element missing) broke the 15 DR or the spell resistance, nor how they achieved tactical surprise (true seeing, te) or handled something that could fly, teleport and kill the party with a standard action (Blasphemy is instant death at these levels).


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jun 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Ok, well I don't want to go spewing a lot of comments, just because it's been a long time and I don't want to misstate. I remember noticing the exploding dice rolls and becoming curious how that would work out with some of the more common TNs. I figured out that for many routine tasks, d4s were better than d6s. Uh, here's some math someone else did:




Uhm, this graphs show that the probability to get a result of _exactly_ 6 is higher for an exploding d4 than for a d6. As a player you'd be interested of getting _at least_ a 6 - and for this experiment the d6 is the better solution.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 29, 2010)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Uhm, this graphs show that the probability to get a result of _exactly_ 6 is higher for an exploding d4 than for a d6. As a player you'd be interested of getting _at least_ a 6 - and for this experiment the d6 is the better solution.




You are reading the graph incorrectly. The probably is higher for the d4.


----------

