Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732000Sometimes it's a matter of pride too. Nobody wants to be that lone player who can't calculate 62 x 75% in their head.

I've got more patience and respect for people who will admit they can't do something, and ask for help, than those who will soldier on in ignorance and fail in confusion.

If you can't do basic fractions and you're not mentally challenged, burn with shame.

Quote from: Ladybird;732006I've got more patience and respect for people who will admit they can't do something, and ask for help, than those who will soldier on in ignorance and fail in confusion.

Honestly, the 75% issue hasn't been an obstacle. It comes up maybe once per player per session on average, and stalls play for maybe 5-10 seconds at most. Aside from that (and the slightly unintuitive blackjack system) RQ6 is a great percentile system IMO with some surprising innovations for such an old and well-used mechanic.

Quote from: herr arnulfe;732000sometimes it's a matter of pride too. Nobody wants to be that lone player who can't calculate 62 x 75% in their head.

"What's 62 x 75%!  Now!"

"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731996I think rolls can be memorable, but its also the surrounding situation that gives them context that is what is great.

This, on the other hand, I would totally agree with.  "Expecting to die but the gods (the dice) declared otherwise" is a great story.

Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%!  Now!"

"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"

Its funny, I almost referred to this as Fuck You percent earlier, but was too lazy to make the post.

I LIKE math and don't feel like figuring it out during play. (That being said, its something that can be easily written down on sheets preplay).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731996I think rolls can be memorable, but its also the surrounding situation that gives them context that is what is great.

For instance, I was playing a Paladin in one game, and a rock troll type thing was kicking all our asses. And I told everyone to run and I would hold it off while they got away. I was pretty much expecting to lose the character, but it just seemed right that the pally would sacrifice himself for the others' survival.

Anyway, this was followed by 3 rounds of it missing me (with two attacks each round that would hit me on a 7 or more), and 3 rounds of me critting (3.x, I was using a 19-20 crit weapon and for some reason I was just ridiculously lucky), and it went down. I was heavily injured (I was injured before everyone ran), but I limped off to meet up with everyone else and it was awesome.

Now, the situation was memorable anyway, a paladin staying behind to save everyone, but the fact that I then seemed to be blessed by the dice gods made it MORE memorable.

Awesome story, and I agree: I roll a crit in a random low risk fight and I'm like "cool! That is going to hit, next!" I roll the same crit at the mummy when it's taken out three of my mates and I'm like "FUCK YES! Who's your daddy now, bitch! High fives! Whoo hoo! Now let's loot the place, pick up the fallen, and get the hell out of here."

Context matters.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731911I never asked for an explanation of bell curves. I asked why it's important for the results to be clustered towards average, and how that impacts the feel of a game.

Which was answered in the second sentence of the original post and then expanded upon at great length. Congratulations on being an illiterate fuckwit.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731933Is that more realistic than a flat modifier? I don't know much about sniping, but I can think of several examples where a normal person would be penalized more heavily by circumstantial factors while attempting a difficult task than a skilled person would be. (e.g. normal climber vs. skilled climber trying to scale a sheer cliff without a top-rope).

What you're claiming a bell curve fails to model is exactly what a bell curve models. The guy who's an expert climber and needs to roll a 4 or better on 3d6 to succeed benefits very little from a +2 rope bonus. The guy who needs to roll a 12 or better to succeed benefits a lot from a +2 rope bonus.

(The guy who's so incompetent he doesn't even know what a rope is or how it could be used to assist in this type of climb and needs to roll an 18 or better to succeed also doesn't benefit much.)

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731927You could still cluster the majority of rolls in the "yes, but" category in DW using a linear randomizer though.

Sure. But then you'd have to bell curve the modifiers in the system and that's a lot more difficult in actual practice.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731944Unless it's something like auditioning for a movie role or selling a screenplay, in which case results will be clustered more towards total failures and total successes than "average" results.

No, the result of a given audition is still going to cluster around your typical range of performance.

Your success or failure at a given audition is going to be dependent on clearing a certain base minimum ("we're not doing this project because we can't find any actor good enough") and in competition with the other people auditioning for the role. If your typical range of performance is significantly higher than those competing for the same roles, you'll succeed in getting cast a lot. If it's significantly lower, you won't get cast very much. Swap your competition for one of a different caliber and your rate of success will change.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055Which was answered in the second sentence of the original post and then expanded upon at great length. Congratulations on being an illiterate fuckwit.

Your second sentence was: "This results in a reduced "swinginess" in common outcomes, but doesn't create a "claustrophobic" environment where characters are frequently either guaranteed success or failure."

As we've already discussed, "reduced swinginess" is irrelevant if you're not measuring degrees of success and failure, and if you are measuring DoS/DoF, it can easily be achieved with a linear randomizer. But instead of addressing this you proceeded to explain (in a very roundabout way) the basic structure of bell curves.

So apologies if I missed any hidden nuance in your explanation. "Swinginess" and "claustrophobic" are the kinds of empty theory-buzzwords that bell curve proponents often bandy around without really knowing what they're talking about, so my eyes might have glazed over while reading your post.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055What you're claiming a bell curve fails to model is exactly what a bell curve models. The guy who's an expert climber and needs to roll a 4 or better on 3d6 to succeed benefits very little from a +2 rope bonus. The guy who needs to roll a 12 or better to succeed benefits a lot from a +2 rope bonus.

No, I didn't claim that a bell curve fails to model this. My "climbing without a top-rope" scenario was a counter-example in response to Brander's claim that equipment bonuses should uniformly favour more skilled characters, in cases where the task is very difficult.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055Sure. But then you'd have to bell curve the modifiers in the system and that's a lot more difficult in actual practice.

Why would you have to bell-curve the DW modifiers if the "yes, but" range was being stretched along a linear probability scale? Is there something sacred about the exact percentage needed for a 10+ on 2d6 if rolling at +1?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055No, the result of a given audition is still going to cluster around your typical range of performance.

Your success or failure at a given audition is going to be dependent on clearing a certain base minimum ("we're not doing this project because we can't find any actor good enough") and in competition with the other people auditioning for the role. If your typical range of performance is significantly higher than those competing for the same roles, you'll succeed in getting cast a lot. If it's significantly lower, you won't get cast very much. Swap your competition for one of a different caliber and your rate of success will change.

Funny, most casting directors I've talked to say they usually get a bunch of amazing performances that make their decision really hard, and then a bunch of duds (trying too hard and overacting?). Rarely is there one standout actor followed by a gradually increasing proportion of slightly less impressive ones. That's why they hold multiple callback rounds and often cast the part based on which actor has the best hair, or which one reminds the director of his first lover.

The U-curve often comes up in classroom performance evaluations too, as well as distribution-of-wealth analyses.

Here's a relevant article from today's Toronto Star:

Ding, Dong, the Bell Curve is Dead

http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/05/09/ding_dong_the_bell_curve_is_dead.html

Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.

Quote from: One Horse Town;732064Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.

Some people just can't seem to handle their little RPG bubble-verses being turned upside-down.

Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%!  Now!"

"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"

Haha.

In CoC I suggested rolling a separate d5 (a d10 numbered 1-5 twice) with every roll to quickly determine critical successes without having to calculate what 20% of your skill level is, but my players didn't mind doing the math - either that or they didn't understand my explanation - so the d5 remains unused...

Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%!  Now!"

"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"

I double-checked and it's actually stat x 67% for challenging tasks, not 75%, which is even harder to calculate on-the fly IMO. So yeah, a little brown streak on an otherwise good system. For our group it hasn't posed a problem, but I could see it causing embarrassment if one player wasn't very good at math.

Quote from: 3rik;732068Haha.

In CoC I suggested rolling a separate d5 (a d10 numbered 1-5 twice) with every roll to quickly determine critical successes without having to calculate what 20% of your skill level is, but my players didn't mind doing the math - either that or they didn't understand my explanation - so the d5 remains unused...

For people that calculating 20 percent is a burden, I had a solution.
First, don't calculate squat during play; only before to get it on the sheet.
Second, use the easiest calculation possible.
Third, don't use on the fly modifiers unless you absolutely must.


So I made it 50% and 10% percent.

So on your sheet, a 62 skill would just look like 62/31/6

Very easy to note at a glance when you roll.

No calculations.