Quote from: K Peterson;731205I just wish that with all the "improvements" coming along with CoC7e, that they'd use stat-derived-base-skill-levels rather than flat, universal base percentiles.

I kind of wish they would too. It seems so obvious now that you just wonder why someone didn't come up with it back in the day. When Loz and Pete were working on MRQ2, you just know it must have made their bloody week when they decided to put in that tweak.

Hell, who knows, maybe they had been houseruling it that way for years, and just no one had ever noticed ...

But as someone's pointed out, Hârn, which must have grown out of similar concerns as BRP, HAD already been doing something similar ...

(I feel like that goes for world-building issues too: the growth of Hârn out of a dissatisfaction with D&D economics and nuts and bolts medieval sociology system, RuneQuest/Glorantha more from the spiritual/cultural ecology side ... but that's all for another thread)

I thought RQ2 had stat-derived skill bases for a lot of stuff?

Either way, with COC I think they wanted to reflect the distinction where in the modern era most of your professional skills are a matter of education and training, and there are a lot of pursuits you can't simply expect to pick up and bluff you way through without any prior training, hence your skills coming from your Education and Intelligence pools rather than being directly derived from stats.

Quote from: Warthur;731211I thought RQ2 had stat-derived skill bases for a lot of stuff?

RQ2 (Chaosium) had various categories where stats provided positive and negative modifiers to a grouping of skills. The base skill levels themselves, however, were a flat value.

QuoteEither way, with COC I think they wanted to reflect the distinction where in the modern era most of your professional skills are a matter of education and training, and there are a lot of pursuits you can't simply expect to pick up and bluff you way through without any prior training, hence your skills coming from your Education and Intelligence pools rather than being directly derived from stats.

I don't disagree with this approach, especially for specialized skills that require education and training. But for more every-man skills, I personally like some impact from attributes.

Roll under is something that I love and hate in equal measure.  On its face, it's simple and easy to use.  70% in a skill means you have a 70% chance to succeed.  Roll and see.  Much easier to use, in theory, than the variable target numbers of the d20 system or dice pools in World of Darkness.  However, what usually happens is that things get mucked up when people want to introduce complications.  Shifting difficulty levels, degrees of success, special mechanics, etc.

When done well, d% roll under is great.  When not done well, it's a headache.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;731214Roll under is something that I love and hate in equal measure.  On its face, it's simple and easy to use.  70% in a skill means you have a 70% chance to succeed.  Roll and see.  Much easier to use, in theory, than the variable target numbers of the d20 system or dice pools in World of Darkness.  However, what usually happens is that things get mucked up when people want to introduce complications.  Shifting difficulty levels, degrees of success, special mechanics, etc.

When done well, d% roll under is great.  When not done well, it's a headache.

I honestly prefer roll-under systems to roll-over systems because they are self-referential.

No asking the GM "Do I succeed?"

But yes, modifiers need to be attached to EITHER the roll or the stat/skill/etc... not both and the game in general needs to be well thought out.

The majority of percentile based rules systems I've seen were poorly implemented, either in design or in play. Was it the game? Was the GM? I don't know and don't care. I just avoid the damned things because they simply weren't my idea of a good time. If this is "pretentious jackholery" which annoys BV, that's a bonus.

Well, generally I don't like the high whiff factor versions like AD&D, Runequest 2 and to a lesser extent 3.  I don't mind as much in WHFRP because it's very much in keeping with the tone of the game.  Here, even the odds shit on your character.

I do like percentile systems though there is a bit of sameishness to them.  I always think they'd work just a little better with multiplicative modifiers, but I've never found an implementation that I felt would be acceptable to peoplt who think one plus one is too much math.

I love roll-under systems, because they tend to provide a more natural hard-cap. I especially love percentiles, because they are the single most odds-transparent mechanic there is.

My wife hates the whole idea of roll-under so much we had a massive row when I attempted to discuss Roulade's mechanics, and that's why the latest revision of 1.1 includes an alternate %+d100 vs. 100 rule for the roll-high set.

Quote from: markfitz;731210I kind of wish they would too. It seems so obvious now that you just wonder why someone didn't come up with it back in the day.

It wouldn't have worked in original RQ because those skills were always in multiples of 5% (to make the math easier). It's adjustment tables made more sense since a 13-16 was +5% whereas a 17 or 18 was +10% or twice that. Using the raw stat undervalues high stats.

Anyway, Elfquest (Chaosium '84) generated initial skill values by adding ability scores. As did FGU's Bushido from '79. So it's nothing new.

Two knocks on % roll low:
-Unnecessary granularity only serves to make math harder.
-Forcing you to roll two dice to determine success means it is more difficult to roll for multiple characters at the same time. Slowing resolution of large battles.

Objecting to d% roll under-mechanics could mean you have a problem with either d%, roll under, or both. Objecting to d% usually has to do with considering the granularity too fine for certain purposes. There's no valid reason for objecting to roll under mechanics except the fact that comparing die roll results can get a bit trickier. The black jack method gets rid of this.

In me experience there's not a notably large group of people who object to d% roll under.

[pet peeve]

Quote from: Warthur;731206(...)literally(...)

literally(...)

"Literally": the new apostrophe...
[/pet peeve]

I don't get what the fuss is all about. Also I'm pretty sure we've already had this thread.

If you don't like roll-under, you can use 1d10+skill level against 100.

If you want degrees of success, you can use skill level-dice roll, blackjack, or the above-mentioned roll-over.

Percentiles are about as intuitivo as they come.

Quote from: Kiero;731169I've had the misfortune to play WFRP2e (great people and premise, tedious setting and shit system), anything involving percentile dice deserves disdain.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: Old Geezer;731191This is the Internet.  You could be giving away free money and some people would bitch.

The truth.

Quote from: 3rik;731226[pet peeve]
"Literally": the new apostrophe...
[/pet peeve]

He used it correctly - either he's never experienced those problems indeed, or, the use of literally as an intensifier of a description has grown to the point it is pretty much accepted literary/conversational device.

Quote from: Old Geezer;731191Roll % under is a great mechanic, especially for new players.  Simply saying "You are competent under normal circumstances, and this is your percentage chance of succeeding under stress, just like an ordinary driver can drive to the grocery store on a nice day with no problem" makes "Starship Piloting: 57%" instantly comprehensible.

That's what I've always thought.

I don't get why people don't like roll under percentiles, but they probably play other games that have a very good skill resolution system that I don't get either.

I don't like BRP's roll-under d% Parry roll, which is independent of how good the attack was. For that reason playing Runequest we switched to skill+d% opposed roll, minimum 100% to succeed, otherwise beat the parry roll to hit.

Apart from opposed checks, roll under d% works ok.

Quote from: S'mon;731233I don't like BRP's roll-under d% Parry roll, which is independent of how good the attack was. For that reason playing Runequest we switched to skill+d% opposed roll, minimum 100% to succeed, otherwise beat the parry roll to hit.

Apart from opposed checks, roll under d% works ok.

One way I handled opposed rolls was to use 'making the roll by 1/2, and by 1/10th break points for how well one did.

For example, if one person makes a roll by half, he wins if the other guy did not make it by half.

Its fairly simple to note 1/2 and 1/10th at a glance.