Quote from: Bren;786802Nope, not at all dated.
...

• The direct translation of die roll to probability D100 system is intuitive in a in a way that D20, 2d6, 3d6, or various dice pools is not.

That's an important reason for me, and the first that came to mind. Percentiles are just more immediately accessible to a wider swath of people... who don't really give a shit about 'clever math'. BRP math is pretty minimal in play.

Quote from: Bren;786802Your dislike is just a personal, subjective preference. It isn't based on any objective measure. Just like my dislike for some recently produced games.

It really boils down to this.

Why do I have to be objective, but you get to be subjective?  I must objectively show it is dated.  Meanwhile, you say that it isn't dated because of your personal preference.

Can I objectively prove that percentile systems are dated?

Are they "coming from or belonging to a time in the past"?

Yes.  I think they are.  Most of them seemed to occupy the 80s.  Percentile systems are considerably rarer now.  Feel free to list as many non-OSR, non-legacy, 21st century percentile systems you like.  I am genuinely curious.  Fuck, I may buy a hardcover version of BRP just because of this thread.

Are they "outmoded, old-fashioned"?

I do believe it can be said they are.  For the past 15 years most everything has been about the d20 system.  It is the dominant kind of system by far.  I don't know about 5e, but it does seem that percentile elements have been largely removed or deprecated from games.  There has actually been some commentary on these boards about the return of such archaic methods such as random percentile charts ala the AD&D 1e days and how it is a return to "old school."  If it's not old fashioned, it's not old school, or "dated."

Quote from: Gabriel2;786814It really boils down to this.

Why do I have to be objective, but you get to be subjective?  I must objectively show it is dated.  Meanwhile, you say that it isn't dated because of your personal preference.

Because the folks using terms like 'dated' and 'aged badly' are using those terms like they're objective, quantifiable qualities... measurements suitable for ALL rules systems and all Players... but they're not, they're just personal tastes from a particular perspective. Not really objective at all.
Like folks who talk about games being 'evolved'... mostly because it sounds scientific and rational, hopefully giving some weight to their (subjective) preference.

You think anyone's using 'dated' as a scientific term?  You're taking this too personally.

Quote from: JonWake;786826You think anyone's using 'dated' as a scientific term?  You're taking this too personally.

Some stuff in RPGs is objective. Some isn't. The person who fails to make a clear distinction between the two is muddying the discussion.

For example, in BRP it is reasonably objectively possible to observe first-time players (in bulk, sociologically) and see them grasp (or fail to grasp) how good they are at "Shooting" because they have 67% in it vs having, say, a "+5" to shoot in another system (is +5 good? depends on the system). If you don't trust the observer, you can at least have the people answer a survey.

You can also fairly objectively say whether it has happened in your group or not.

You an also fairly objectively report how old the people in your group are and whether they've played RPGs before, etc.

It is only subjectively possible to say whether you like that or not, or whether that matters to you or not.

People who claim their opinion is fact and can't describe the difference are:
1. Common
and
2. Responsible for pretty much every annoying thing about talking about RPGs on the internet.

…so you can be part of the problem and get away with it, sure. But it's still being part of the problem.

Quote from: JonWake;786826You think anyone's using 'dated' as a scientific term?  You're taking this too personally.

Did I say that? Anywhere? Nope.

12 beers in, I hope this makes sense...

I don't find any game system "dated," but I do find some more user friendly than others.

I'm 34, many of my friends played AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. I did not. I fucking hated those games. Why? Because they were 1) boring as shit, and 2) used stupid mechanics. And coming from a Palladium player, that should say a lot. THAC0 was probably the most ridiculously stupid mechanic in any RPG ever. Possibly the only thing 3.x did well was get rid of it. The only argument I've ever heard/seen/read in favor of it was "subtraction isn't hard." Yeah, subtraction isn't hard, but so fucking what? What benefit does it have over a simple addition mechanic? Correct answer: none. Dated? Maybe not. But needlessly unnecessary? Totes McGoats

One great thing about the Torg log chart was that it made it VERY easy to do conversions.

Like, 'oh hey, feet to meters is just -1 (or maybe it was -2) on the chart.'

And if you wanted to turn game stuff into real numbers, you could say 'I boost my TK, so now I can lift a weight 5x as much'

Quote from: Gabriel2;786814It really boils down to this.

Why do I have to be objective, but you get to be subjective?  I must objectively show it is dated.  Meanwhile, you say that it isn't dated because of your personal preference.

Actually it boils down to this.

As you used it, "dated" is a meaningless term, used as a pejorative to in an attempt to add spurious justification to support what is only your subjective preference in liking newer games. Using "dated" just begs the question of why anyone should give a shit about what you like or dislike.

On the other hand, I admitted my dislike of some modern games is subjective and that using the term "dated" to describe those modern systems would just be describing my feeling (read: subjective dislike) for those games. In fact, I did that right there in the quote you used. In my later post, I clearly distinguished between subjective preferences and objective observations e.g. D100 directly translates to percentile scores which makes it more intuitive than D20.

Or maybe just read what Simlasa and Zak said.

After a good 18 pages of discussion I think my personal answer to the question comes down to this. How cohesive are the rules, are there internal conflicts within the rule set and does the rule set require players to take unnecessary actions to resolve actions.  

I don't think the conversation is d% versus dX, but rather does the system have multiple resolution mechanics?  This is to say rolling d% to resolve some skills but  dX for others feels dated to me.

For example, there is a single resolution mechanics for Marvel Super Heroes (FASERIP) which feels less dated to me than AD&D 2nd Ed which uses multiple independent forms of resolution even within the concept of skills (Thieving Abilities versus Non-Weapon Proficiencies). Even though AD&D 2nd End came out a few years later.  

Now, there are other aspects that may feel dated in the FASERIP system, such as the  completely random  character creation and the language/editing in the book. However, if we are just looking at resolution mechanics Marvel had a much more cohesive feel.  

One might compare MSH to say Eclipse Phase which also uses a d% for resolution and removes the need for a chart but I think that's more comparing strengths and weaknesses in the engines as opposed to how dated the engine feels. The Universal Chart was just that a single chart to reference which addressed concepts of degrees of success outside of just critical hits.

This post mostly focuses on task resolution as I've already discussed THAC0 in a previous post. To touch on that briefly this is an example of taking extra steps to resolve an action and was simplified with 3.x.

Quote from: Bren;786708It matters if I rolled a 54 or a 55. So about 2% of the time. If we are making say 10 rolls per round* total (for PCs and NPCs) than it matters about one round in 5 to someone. That's often enough to matter to me.

Odds ratios can also mount quickly when differences are doubled by being "reflexive" - a bonus for one party and a penalty for the other.

Level differences in 4e D&D seem to boil down to something like that. The designers clearly wanted it to be a fairly big deal, which fits d20 nicely. Attack vs. parry in RuneQuest is similar: 60 vs 50 becomes 3:2 odds, and 40 vs 25 becomes 2:1. The rules liberally dispense 5-percentile bonuses/penalties.

DragonQuest gave single points in ability scores significance (e.g., attacker's MD vs defender's AG in combat). They amounted to less in proportion as skill ranks added up.

QuoteWell it is an overly complicated formula.

I'm not certain how to parse your English into a formula, but it sounds like one of the following. Which all equal a constant where the STAT is irrelevant.
   (Sqrt(STAT)/(Sqrt(STAT))*100 = 100

   Sqrt(STAT)/(Sqrt(STAT)*100) = .01

   Sqrt(STAT)/(Sqrt(STAT*100) = Sqrt(STAT)/(Sqrt(STAT)*Sqrt(100)) = .1


* Which is often a lower than expected number of rolls for 3-4 PCs fighting an equal number of NPCs in a Chaosium-type game like BRP, CoC, or Runequest.

Quote from: Bren;786719I like the math being right. I'm fine with formulas. Multiplicative modifiers are OK with me if at least one of the following hold.

1) The calculation is only done at character creation or infrequently between sessions based on character improvements e.g. leveling up.

2) The players don't ever have to do the calculations.

3) Everyone in the game is an engineer, mathematician, or math nerd (calculators for each player are optional).

Proportional mods are nifty because you can let dice do the math.

Quote from: David Johansen;786750One of the funny things that tends to come up in Rolemaster fan debates is how many people ditched the weapon tables for the formulas in one of the companions.

I really only got into Rolemaster with the third edition where various new rules caught my attention.  When it became apparent that they would never be used or supported in future editions I got in a huff and left.

But Rolemaster isn't so much complex as it is dense.  I find it easier to get people to play it than Traveller the New Era or GURPS but that might just be generic fantasy's strangle hold on the hobby.

That blows my mind. I have only read TNE, but it looks pretty smooth and not too different from the d10-based versions of the GDW house system I have played.

RM really benefits from player system-mastery keeping the ref from getting overloaded, but there's a lot to put together. At least the first couple or three editions had stuff spread all over the place, but even with better organization it's got to look pretty imposing.

Quote from: Bren;786802Nope, not at all dated.

• The direct translation of die roll to probability D100 system is intuitive in a in a way that D20, 2d6, 3d6, or various dice pools is not.

• 1% increments allow for degrees of success that directly relate to the basic chance for success instead of being independent of the chance of success, e.g. a 60% chance of success has a (.2x60)=12% chance of a special success, a (.05x60)=3% chance for a critical success, a 40% chance of failure, and a (.05x40)=2% chance of a fumble.

• In contrast systems that have the chance for an especially good success or bad failure (i.e. criticals and fumbles) that are the same regardless of the chance for success seem flawed to me. It doesn't stop me from playing them, if they are otherwise appealing, but that is despite what I see as a flaw.

Those systems are eminently playable. Your dislike is just a personal, subjective preference. It isn't based on any objective measure. Just like my dislike for some recently produced games.

Objectively some games are specifically not dealing with heroic characters. For example, a number of BRP style games focus on characters that are only heroic in their actions and choices, not because they possess any legendary or superhuman ability - because they don't have such abilties.

======================

Separate topic

This discussion of math and logs reminds me of the original DC Heroes system which had a not very intuitive, but easy to use and very mathy AP system based on logs. It allowed for a very easy calculation of how far a character of could throw an object of a given mass.

So Power Man with a STR of 10 APs could throw a bus of mass 8 APs (10-8)=2 APs in distance. Whereas Power Man a couch with mass 3APs 7APs distant. It also made it easy to determine that Batman with a STR of 5 could not lift, much less toss a bus, but Batman could toss the couch the same distance as Power Man could throw a bus. It required a table listing the relations of mass to AP and distance to AP as well as other AP tables.

It also allowed some really unique determinations like how fast Batman could read War and Peace. Basically compare Batman's Mind (which was probably something like 10 or 12 APs) to the Information content of War and Peace (which was either listed in the table or could be calculated based on page length) to find out how many APs of time it would take to read War and Peace. Not for everyone, I'll admit, but it did some damn cool things that no other game I've seen could do.

Yeah,  DC Heroes was part of what went into Torg. I remember telling one of the West End guys I thought they should apply to other subjects the rules they had developed for Star Wars, but he said they already had a "universal system" in mind.

Quote from: Simlasa;786813That's an important reason for me, and the first that came to mind. Percentiles are just more immediately accessible to a wider swath of people... who don't really give a shit about 'clever math'. BRP math is pretty minimal in play.

That's probably one reason - actually two of the reasons - I've found it the easiest system for newcomers to the hobby to pick up.