Quote from: soltakss;732721The variable vs bellcurve performance is just one paltry example of why people might think that. It's a sideshow, not the main event.

If Black Vulmea wishes to opine on any other topics related to the thread, that's fine too.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732713Congratulations, you've completed an amateur peer-review on what's the internet equivalent of napkin notes, with a heavy dose of rudeness on the side.

Translation?

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732713Now stop rubbing your rudimentary jock-cock . . .

Wait for it.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732542My original claim was based purely on qualitative experience playing summer softball for 15+ years and watching games on TV.

Thanks for filling us all in on your baseball resume.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732772Thanks for filling us all in on your baseball resume.

Context, man. Old One Eye suggested I was basing an entire thesis on hypocritical stat manipulation. Trust me, rec softball doesn't make one an expert.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Old Geezer;732780:popcorn:

LOL Fuck I love this smiley. Timing is everything with this one. Ahahaha.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732592In my experience, which is the only way I can talk about something that is not studied, the sorts of game designers and game masters who want to run a game where a PC starts with a 30% in a defining skill want to run that game because they like the low odds of success either because it is a built in railroad they can count on, or because they think it is funny.

Umm... no.

There's this approach to RPGs where the referee sets up the situation and then everyone playing discovers what happens when the players go through the scenario.  d100 roll under systems were born in the crucible of old school gaming where even the idea of railroading makes no sense whatsoever.  

If you end up with 30% in what you consider to be a defining characteristic it's because that's the chance to succeed that character has.  For example, I'm running a Runequest 2nd edition game and the highest weapon skill is 35%.  Why is that?  The characters are 16 year olds going out into the wider world for the first time.  If you want a game where the characters are older and more competent, then there are rules for additional years of training and experience.

It's not about railroading or GM's laughing at you.  It's about representing the competency of characters in a setting.  And guess what?  In some games you play very ordinary people and in others you play gods.

And when you play people with a 30% skill in a defining area, then you learn to actual roleplay things out and concentrate on the fiction rather than the system to hand you victory.  The referee will describe the situation and you can ask questions and describe what you do and if you are smart about it, then you won't just be in a situation where you fight and fight until your 30% sword skill gets you killed.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732592In my experience, which is the only way I can talk about something that is not studied, the sorts of game designers and game masters who want to run a game where a PC starts with a 30% in a defining skill want to run that game because they like the low odds of success either because it is a built in railroad they can count on, or because they think it is funny.

Show us on the doll where percentile dice touched your character in a bad way.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732777Trust me, rec softball doesn't make one an expert.

Clearly.


Why is it so fucking hard to say, 'Yeah, y'know that thing I said? Turns out I was talking out of my ass,' exactly? What is to be gained by fighting knowledge?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732811Clearly.


Why is it so fucking hard to say, 'Yeah, y'know that thing I said? Turns out I was talking out of my ass,' exactly? What is to be gained by fighting knowledge?

Actually I did defer to your objections, but you wouldn't hear it because your only reason for entering the thread in the first place was a monkey-brain desire to knock the "know-it-all" down a notch or two. After your rude entrance you were committed to being a douchbag all the way.

Quote from: NathanIW;732789And when you play people with a 30% skill in a defining area, then you learn to actual roleplay things out and concentrate on the fiction rather than the system to hand you victory. The referee will describe the situation and you can ask questions and describe what you do and if you are smart about it, then you won't just be in a situation where you fight and fight until your 30% sword skill gets you killed.

This.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732838After your rude entrance you were committed to being a douchbag all the way.

Your butthurt is noted.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732860Your butthurt is noted.

You were wrong about what happened and I corrected you. I couldn't give two shits about your opinion of me.

Quote from: Old Geezer;732806Show us on the doll where percentile dice touched your character in a bad way.

Someone asked why people hate % dice. I'm explaining.

When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.

Quote from: NathanIW;732789Umm... no.

There's this approach to RPGs where the referee sets up the situation and then everyone playing discovers what happens when the players go through the scenario.  d100 roll under systems were born in the crucible of old school gaming where even the idea of railroading makes no sense whatsoever.  

If you end up with 30% in what you consider to be a defining characteristic it's because that's the chance to succeed that character has.  For example, I'm running a Runequest 2nd edition game and the highest weapon skill is 35%.  Why is that?  The characters are 16 year olds going out into the wider world for the first time.  If you want a game where the characters are older and more competent, then there are rules for additional years of training and experience.

It's not about railroading or GM's laughing at you.  It's about representing the competency of characters in a setting.  And guess what?  In some games you play very ordinary people and in others you play gods.

And when you play people with a 30% skill in a defining area, then you learn to actual roleplay things out and concentrate on the fiction rather than the system to hand you victory.  The referee will describe the situation and you can ask questions and describe what you do and if you are smart about it, then you won't just be in a situation where you fight and fight until your 30% sword skill gets you killed.

That sounds like something that someone trying to sell a d100 system would say. That's a nice story but it isn't what happens.

In fact, victory is handed to you much easier in a low success game. All you have to do is guess the path of least resistance the GM was forced to spread out on the table and then listen to his NPCs talk.

If the plot was written into the GM's notes that "oh this is a sandbox but they can choose to fight and die or talk and live," because the GM knows there is no scenario where a fight can turn out ok due to the low chance of success, he is forced to write clear talking scenarios or his game is a piece of shit everyone will tire of in a few sessions. No one likes infinite chains of losing scenarios because they are focusing on story.

If the player can make a die roll even a little more than half the time in bad situations, and often in good situations, then there might be some point in working through different forward moving conditions, talking about paths of success, deciding who to go after and so on and on.

d100 = Fight or Talk, Fight and Die, Talk and Fail = Listen to the GM's Story
dChanceofSuccess = GM doesn't know what is going to happen = complexity

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732892When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732893In fact, victory is handed to you much easier in a low success game. All you have to do is guess the path of least resistance the GM was forced to spread out on the table and then listen to his NPCs talk.

If the plot was written into the GM's notes that "oh this is a sandbox but they can choose to fight and die or talk and live," because the GM knows there is no scenario where a fight can turn out ok due to the low chance of success, he is forced to write clear talking scenarios or his game is a piece of shit everyone will tire of in a few sessions. No one likes infinite chains of losing scenarios because they are focusing on story.

If the player can make a die roll even a little more than half the time in bad situations, and often in good situations, then there might be some point in working through different forward moving conditions, talking about paths of success, deciding who to go after and so on and on.

d100 = Fight or Talk, Fight and Die, Talk and Fail = Listen to the GM's Story
dChanceofSuccess = GM doesn't know what is going to happen = complexity