Quote from: Claudius;533194Please elaborate.

Making a gross oversimplification here.

Some operations are easier on the brain than others. Addition is easier than substraction, for example. It is postulated also that our brain has an easier time with roll-over systems than with roll-under.

QuoteI'm not surprised, as I said mathematically there is no difference.

Actually, there is no difference regarding the success %, but is far easier to calculate:
- opposed rolls
- critical and special hits.

Using Frank's system every successful roll that ends in 0 or 5 is a crit. You don't have to recalculate the % of an special success according to the modifiers. Also, it gives you an easy peasy way of making opposed rolls, which is absent from CoC rules.

Seriously, is a huge advantage.

Quote from: The Butcher;533228I get that, man, and more power to you. I just don't buy into the anti-roll-under crusade, and the "objectively better" line of argument. It makes Frank look like an idiot savant of RPG rules-tinkering.

Oh, of course, crusades are absurd.

Quote from: Imperator;533286Making a gross oversimplification here.

Some operations are easier on the brain than others. Addition is easier than substraction, for example. It is postulated also that our brain has an easier time with roll-over systems than with roll-under.


Actually, there is no difference regarding the success %, but is far easier to calculate:
- opposed rolls
- critical and special hits.

Using Frank's system every successful roll that ends in 0 or 5 is a crit. You don't have to recalculate the % of an special success according to the modifiers. Also, it gives you an easy peasy way of making opposed rolls, which is absent from CoC rules.

Seriously, is a huge advantage.

Calculating CoC's critical rules and opposing rolls requires mathematical skills of adding and subtracting up to a 100, and be able to divide by 5 and round up/down. I understand that public schooling is down everywhere, but for fuck's sake. It's about as much of an advantage as shaving legs for Tour De France - you look better, and it's easier to put plasters on, but not much else.

Mind you - I don't disagree it's not an advantage, but it's imo veeeeery minor one. And on the other hand, roll - under systems have a huge advantage of being quite easily readable and explainable - even though humans apparently do not understand probability that well.

Quote from: Claudius;533186Is he? After all he has said in this very thread about roll-over and roll-under, well, I don't want to call names, but frankly... :confused: . I may not be a genius, and haven't studied maths for a long time, and yet, I know that roll-under and roll-over are mathematically THE SAME FUCKING THING. It's like saying that 6+3 is better than 3+6. :confused:

I see rolling under as making a task easier by adding skills and tech level and other bonuses to your attribute and then rolling a value less than or equal to it.

I see rolling over as making a task easier by subtracting skills and tech level and attributes and other bonuses from a target number and then rolling a value equal to or greater than it.

Now if changes are being made to a die roll in order for a player to reach a goal, I'm not for that.  I like my die roll value to be the final number.  I don't want to be adding and subracting values to or from a die I just rolled (or even squaring a die roll).  That's like shooting a gun at a bad guy and missing him, but then moving the bad guy in front of the bullet so that a hit was achieved after the fact.

I find addition is easy for bookkeeping. THAC0 is understandably confusing for some. Counting lost arrows by hash marks spent, rather than keeping a running tally by subtraction, feels easier.

I find roll-over/under, since it is usually a pass/fail function, is simply a comparison of numbers requiring zero addition or subtraction. Systems, in my experience, usually don't care by how much you pass or fail.

I like to keep my probability spectrum fixed, like CoC's 1~100%. I don't like to do any extra calculations when determining TN/DC/'whatev'.

Roll-over, in my experience, complicates maintaining my fixed spectrum on my side when I determine TN/DC/'whatev', thus giving me more bookkeeping. This makes me sad.

Therefore, I find roll-under works fastest for my needs overall.

BUT, I would never come out with the dictate that Roll-Under is provably empirically better. Roll-over/under is nothing more than greater-than/less-than comparisons for a pass/fail test. It's a preference, nothing more. Speaking ex cathedra about it sounds rather silly.

Quote from: Imperator;533286Making a gross oversimplification here.

Some operations are easier on the brain than others. Addition is easier than substraction, for example. It is postulated also that our brain has an easier time with roll-over systems than with roll-under.

Now I get it, thank you!

Yes, it's true that some operations seem easier. For example, since I was a kid I cannot multiply 7x6. I cannot. But if I think "Hey, 7x6, 6x7. 42. I got it". You see? My brain prefers 6x7 to 7x6. But mathematically, they are the same thing. The difference is illusory.

Do our brains find roll-over easier than roll-under? I think it depends on every person. I usually find roll-under easier than roll-over, but that's me, and I don't find it much easier, I have no difficulties with roll-over systems. For example, in Rolemaster it's very usual to add double digit numbers, let's say you have +47 OB and roll 52. How much? 99. It's cumbersome at first, but when you have performed a few operations, it gets much easier. In fact I enjoy the "rush" I feel when my brain gets used to adding double digit numbers in few seconds. I'll have to play Rolemaster again!!

QuoteActually, there is no difference regarding the success %,

Exactly.

Quotebut is far easier to calculate:
- opposed rolls
- critical and special hits.

Using Frank's system every successful roll that ends in 0 or 5 is a crit. You don't have to recalculate the % of an special success according to the modifiers. Also, it gives you an easy peasy way of making opposed rolls, which is absent from CoC rules.

Using the "0 and 5 are crits" rule is a great idea, it's very intuitive. But that idea is not exclusive of roll-over systems, you could use it with a roll-under system too. In fact, that's exactly how crits work in Hârnmaster, a roll-under percentile system. I bet he got that idea from Hârnmaster, and if he didn't, well, great ideas are great.

Quote from: Claudius;533554Using the "0 and 5 are crits" rule is a great idea, it's very intuitive. But that idea is not exclusive of roll-over systems, you could use it with a roll-under system too. In fact, that's exactly how crits work in Hârnmaster, a roll-under percentile system. I bet he got that idea from Hârnmaster, and if he didn't, well, great ideas are great.

Oh, absolutely. I can't see why not. For example:

You have a Gun 64% plus 15% for gun quality minus 27% due to distance and lighting and another minus 6% just because. So you have a 46%. You roll and if your roll is under 46 you succeed, and if it ends in 0 or 5 you crit. Not hard at all.

No, not hard at all. You just described how Hârnmaster works.

Regarding opposed rolls, they're easy to resolve with roll-under, MRQ2 does them very well.

I'm not trying to convince you that what you did with Call of Cthulhu is badwrong, the only thing you did was to change the way the information is portrayed.

Quote from: Claudius;534081No, not hard at all. You just described how Hârnmaster works.

Regarding opposed rolls, they're easy to resolve with roll-under, MRQ2 does them very well.

I'm not trying to convince you that what you did with Call of Cthulhu is badwrong, the only thing you did was to change the way the information is portrayed.

Actually the biggest benefit is that you have it easier to make opposed rolls, like Hide vs Spot Hidden and all that.

Quote from: Imperator;534123Actually the biggest benefit is that you have it easier to make opposed rolls, like Hide vs Spot Hidden and all that.

Why do you say that? I find the way MRQ2 handles opposed rolls equally easy. You know, like el Precio Justo (I knew how to say it in English but I can't remember ).

Quote from: Claudius;534179Why do you say that? I find the way MRQ2 handles opposed rolls equally easy. You know, like el Precio Justo (I knew how to say it in English but I can't remember ).

I roll 76+45= 121 Spot hidden vs you 45+56= 101 Hide, so I win

Quote from: Imperator;534199I roll 76+45= 121 Spot hidden vs you 45+56= 101 Hide, so I win

That's not easier than the way MRQ2 handles opposed rolls. I have Perception 63%, roll 60, you have Hide 78%, roll 55, I win. I think that roll-under opposed rolls are even easier (but not that much).

Sorry if it looks like I'm trying to convince you that you're doing it wrong (you're not, roll-over is fine), what I'm arguing, is that Mr. Trollman's assertion that roll-over is superior to roll-under is a pile of bullshit. Roll-over and roll-under are exactly the same thing, but expressed in a different way. Like 9x4 and 4x9.