Quote from: Lynn on August 13, 2024, 02:15:04 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on August 13, 2024, 01:14:40 AM

Quote from: Lynn on August 12, 2024, 01:27:14 AMI wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.

This is what bugs me about d100% systems, characters are basically so incredibly incompetent. A surgeon might have a skill of 55% and that means he kills 45% of the people he operates on. You can add difficulties, but it doesn't scale that well compared to the original skill %

It just doesn't make any sense. If someone is competent, then performing a task in a 'normal' amount of time, with the 'normal' tools should simply be a success. A risk of failure should happen though, under not normal conditions.

It took me a while to learn this when I started to run CoC/DG for my daughters, and then morph that into our Traveller game. A failed roll does not always mean a failure, it reflects the time needed to secede or triggering any secondary/tertiary issues.

CoC/DG - they HAVE to find the clues for the adventure to progress. Roll the check - pass good to go they find it (a hard or extreme even better they get more info or something that will help later [a key with a tag 231 on it, and then they find out that the bad guy has a storage locker in a facility with 1 - 300 ... I wonder what that key is for ?)

A fail, they still get the clue, but it takes longer (now make some stealth checks etc to keep from getting caught) &/or they leave evidence they were there searching, so now the bad guy knows they are being investigated and are now more careful (so future checks are harder etc)

Quote from: Tod13 on August 13, 2024, 09:36:25 AMSorry, this isn't quite what is being talked about but it made me think of this real-life example.

The interesting part is if you try to model things like a Whipple procedure for Pancreatic Cancer. They take half the pancreas and move all the internal organs away, to delay invasion if it reoccurs.

When done in a hospital that does these all the time (meaning a dozen or more a year), the mortality rate is down to 1-3% from the surgery. If done at a place that doesn't do it a lot, it's more like the rates from thirty years ago, 15%.

Some games do have 'extended tests' where there are multiple rolls, one for each step.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 13, 2024, 02:33:21 AMThief skills in AD&D are comically bad. As explained in the book, you're usually better off with a fighter using a 10' pole to poke around. His chance to sneak around isn't much worse either.

Given how fatal a botched result can be (at 1st level) it really made me wonder.

You don't need multiple rolls in that example. "Experienced team, +10% to skill," gives you the same odds without the trouble of multiple rolls.

Over on the RPGPub they were discussing the whiff factor in rpgs, which pretty commonly happens with percentile systems - it doesn't have to, it's just how they're often designed. X rolls to attack, Y rolls to parry, whiff. But if you want to swap a roll for a chart you can do so, eg X has 50% Sword, Y has 70% Dodge, the chance of a successful Sword roll followed by failed Dodge is 50% x (100-70)% = 50% x 30% = 15%. You can put all that on a chart and there you go. D&D does this indirectly by having you roll vs AC to hit, and having a Dexterity bonus to AC.

And all this takes me back to the probably apocryphal story of Dave Arneson running people through his first dungeon, and at first the combat rules were "roll d6, highest roll wins, the other guy dies, move on." But players found this unsatisfying, so he referred to his ironclad wargame rules and added "armor class" and "hit points". Now, if you're doing 1d6 damage and have 1d6 hit points, statistically this is exactly the same as the d6 vs d6 dice-off. But it doesn't feel the same, you have at least a chance of more than one combat round and some back-and-forth, and if you now add another rule allowing something other than fighting in the combat round, perhaps the one who's losing can parley, surrender or flee.

So there are lots of ways to get the same results statistically, but each way feels different, and each change of rules invites more changes of rules. 

Another advantage of d100 systems I hadn't considered: you could give something like 3 points PER SESSION instead of writing down XP/levels, to slowly improve PCs.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 09, 2024, 06:07:37 PMThe last d% game that I really loved was Star Frontiers.  Then they came out with a colored chart which firmly sent me into the Traveller camp.

Star Frontiers is what I've been playing lately.  The dice were missing from the box set but I got some original Gamescience dice for it.

I love percentile systems. Roll number or less to succeed. The higher the roll without failing is the success rate if you so choose. Combat you reverse the successful roll to determine hit location also based on a %!

In my % based game that one day I may publish is called The Olde Realm. The default score is always 25%. It has 24 different SCORES.

Academic, Accuracy, Action, Brawling, Entertain, Equestrian, Healer, Intuition, Looks, Lore, Melee, Might, Occupation, Perception, Rural, Social, Stamina, Status, Stealth, Streets, Thievery, Wilderness, Will, Worship, 

The Magic system was based off the eight elements. Flame, Ice, Storm, Wood, Luminance, Shadow, Spirit, Stone. and other magic off of religious doctrines of the different religions. I just revamped and hopefully simplified the magic system.

Normal characters get 50-200 points to spend. Age is a factor in the SCORES. HUGE list of background and occupations. It's a dark Industrial Swordpunk type world with giant cities, cults, factions and intrigues. I based it off and was inspired somewhat off of WHFR, Thief the Dark Project, New Weird Fiction, Renfest, Bronte Novels, World History, Ancient Rome, Mythology, Occultism, Religious History  and a touch of Steampunk ect. I wrote it at a time when I was getting tired of JUST AD&D2E out there and couldn't find a copy of WHFR. Had a 12 year campaign with those developing rules.

Sadly in real life, was completely betrayed by one of my main players and part writer and have been purging the documents of any and all trace of that vile scum and turning all traces of his character into a vile betrayer who turned to bane demon worship, murdering all his order, a bunch of innocents and all accomplishments of that character into tragic burnt ruins, his name purged and forgotten except for whispered curses that he still burns in eternity for all time in the game as well, which is mostly complete.       

Quote from: Eldrad on August 16, 2024, 01:08:33 AMI love percentile systems. Roll number or less to succeed. The higher the roll without failing is the success rate if you so choose. Combat you reverse the successful roll to determine hit location also based on a %!

You really should check out Broken Empires when it hits Kickstarter.  It uses that system (which in my head I call blackjack percentiles) and the ones die is also your hit location die.  You can burn successes/success levels to move the location or do other stunts on that hit.

Quote from: zircher on August 16, 2024, 11:01:54 AM

Quote from: Eldrad on August 16, 2024, 01:08:33 AMI love percentile systems. Roll number or less to succeed. The higher the roll without failing is the success rate if you so choose. Combat you reverse the successful roll to determine hit location also based on a %!

You really should check out Broken Empires when it hits Kickstarter.  It uses that system (which in my head I call blackjack percentiles) and the ones die is also your hit location die.  You can burning successes/success levels to move the location or do other stunts on that hit.

Top Secret/SI.

Quote from: yosemitemike on August 12, 2024, 01:01:55 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 10, 2024, 11:28:57 AMSometimes that extra granularity slows down actual play. Which do you find faster? D6, d20, or d100 roll mechanics?

I haven't found that the type of die used, by itself, has any noticeable effect on the speed of play.  What slows down play is systems that require the players to read the dice in odd ways and/or to read multiple dice and interpret the results. 

Quote from: DocJones on August 13, 2024, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 10, 2024, 12:26:41 PM1% chance of rolling a 100 on 1d100. 5% chance of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Plus d100 always roll off the table  and then ya gotta find em.

.46% chance of rolling an 18 in a 3d6 system.  More granular.
Way too many fumbles and critical hits in d20 system.

Crits of all kinds are more common with DnD BUT, they make the game more interesting than the vapid failure associated with d100.

I have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.

Indeed I prefer stats that are noted in the single digits. Like, I prefer if skills are noted as Novice/None, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. Anything more granular is just numbers for the sake of numbers to me.

The problem comes in when you try to handle progression. Small numbers doesn't give a lot of room for progression unless you use convoluted XP systems and carefully manage it so it doesn't feel too fast or too slow.

To be entirely honest, I wonder whether progression systems were even a good idea to begin with.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMTo be entirely honest, I wonder whether progression systems were even a good idea to begin with.

I think they are. 

There are reasons against.  You don't need progression if you want to do similar adventures for a long time.  It can change the nature of the game, which may be unwanted, e.g. D&D is very different at low, mid, and high levels.  And it can add otherwise unneeded complexity to design and play. 

On the other hand, the reasons to have it are pretty compelling.  Getting better at stuff feels great and so does your character getting better at stuff, even if the latter is an imaginary counterfeit of the former.  If there's not progress towards a larger goal, a game starts to feel pointless, and character progression is pretty easy to implement as a goal.  And you may want the nature of the game to change to keep interest.  As an example I stopped reading DragonballZ after I discovered that it was an endless cycle of encounter a threat, get beaten, train hard, beat the threat, repeating on an ever larger stage.  Boring.

Overall having progression is better than not having it, but not having it is a legitimate design choice that should be made for a particular game after weighing the pros and cons.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMI have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.

D20 roll-under is solid, serviceable mechanic. However, player's love to shout out "NAT 20!" when the die rolls a 20 and expect goodness. Fighting that is an uphill battle.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMIndeed I prefer stats that are noted in the single digits. Like, I prefer if skills are noted as Novice/None, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. Anything more granular is just numbers for the sake of numbers to me.

You lost me there. 1 to 5 is the minimum skill range for me.

Quote from: Aglondir on August 17, 2024, 09:46:48 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMI have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.

D20 roll-under is solid, serviceable mechanic. However, player's love to shout out "NAT 20!" when the die rolls a 20 and expect goodness. Fighting that is an uphill battle.

I dunno, when I ran Dragon Warriors (which is roll under on a d20 for most mechanics), it seemed like my players were just as pumped for the critical on a natural 1.

Quote from: Aglondir on August 17, 2024, 09:46:48 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMI have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.

D20 roll-under is solid, serviceable mechanic. However, player's love to shout out "NAT 20!" when the die rolls a 20 and expect goodness. Fighting that is an uphill battle.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMIndeed I prefer stats that are noted in the single digits. Like, I prefer if skills are noted as Novice/None, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. Anything more granular is just numbers for the sake of numbers to me.

You lost me there. 1 to 5 is the minimum skill range for me.

For me it depends on the size of the randomizer. For a d20 even a +5 barely rises above the statistical variance of rolling two dice and using the better result.

Generally a minimum range for me is half the dice size... for a d20 you need modifers of at least +10 from various sources (attribute + skill + misc.).