Quote from: Benoist;732945I'll get straight to something that's going to blow some people's minds here but ... you have 1-in-6 chance as a human to detect a secret door in O/AD&D. OMG! What the fuck is this game for griefers? What the hell?

No, no, that's totally fair.

Rolling 17 or less on d%, on the other hand, is strictly for griefers.

That's two in six to locate actually, but what the hell. Bunch of sadists!

Quote from: Benoist;732947That's two in six to locate actually, but what the hell. Bunch of sadists!

That's still way better than 33%, which means you only find the door by mother-may-I.

Enjoy your magical tea party, assholes.

:popcorn:

You guys are killin' me!

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732924Talk or Fail is a boring scenario. I've never seen a GM run that game well. That's why that sort of game is disliked by so many people.

Tell us more about Talk or Fail, that isn't common jargon around here and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

(Perhaps it would be good to define Fight or Talk/Fight and Die while you're at it.)

So BRP is bad because you know the failure rate more easily than when rolling other sorts of dice..? Not because they differ statistically, but simply because the GM will automatically railroad you if he knows something has a 25% chance of happening rather than having to do simple division to figure it out..?

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732931Nightbane, Rifts, and Heroes Unlimited are barely d100 systems. You use a 20 for most of combat and half of what happens is governed by automatic success or failure.

Some of these things are not like the others.

CoC for example. If I could think of a genera not to immigrate with a percentile roll it is that. The books are about a regular guy automatically passing every perception, information gathering, diplomacy and firearms check possible, only to decide at the end to automatically pass his fleeing check.

I guess you are referring to Lovecraft stories. Which don't work that way. Neither does the game. You are not making a lot of sense.

Quote from: Benoist;732945you have 1-in-6 chance as a human to detect a secret door in O/AD&D. OMG! What the fuck is this game for griefers? What the hell?

Clearly, it's not a modern version of the game.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732931Nightbane, Rifts, and Heroes Unlimited are barely d100 systems. You use a 20 for most of combat and half of what happens is governed by automatic success or failure.

Some of these things are not like the others.

You should check out Palladium Fantasy Roleplay 1st edition and compare it to these other games you listed.  Might help illuminate the issue.  Heck, just play 1st edition and then play 2nd and compare.

Or do the Trail of Cthulhu and Call of Cthulhu actual play comparison.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;733050Clearly, it's not a modern version of the game.

If you are not playing a modern version of the game, but instead prefer run an older version involving these types of probabilities on a roll, then you probably are a railroading griefing sadist of a DM. Which doesn't mean you -you- of course. *wink wink*

On the subject of low percent chance of success can affect the player's approaches:

QuoteWilliam Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement! In a fair fight, I'd kill you!
Jack Sparrow: Well, that's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732931CoC for example. If I could think of a genera not to immigrate with a percentile roll it is that. The books are about a regular guy automatically passing every perception, information gathering, diplomacy and firearms check possible, only to decide at the end to automatically pass his fleeing check.

It says right there on the cover of CoC 6E "Roleplaying in the worlds of H.P. Lovecraft" , not "reproducing the stories of H.P. Lovecraft".

:forge:

While I haven't played it, I don't think even ToC aims at reproducing Lovecraft stories, though those with actual experience playing the game may correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;733074On the subject of low percent chance of success can affect the player's approaches:

In my RQ game, the group of unarmoured 16 year olds ended up killing a fully armed and armoured dwarf knight by use of intelligent ambush tactics, surprise, grappling and confusion magic.

Now they're wondering around with his gear split between them like a walking sign to other dwarves:  we killed your friend and took his stuff.

On the subject on 'roll under' favoring GMs that like players to fail, I don't think it is valid (though I don't like roll under systems).  If the players have a 30% chance to succeed on an attack roll, but the enemies also have a 30% chance to succeed on an attack roll, that's not much different than both sides needing a 15+ on a d20; they're both missing more often than they hit.

If the PCs have a 30% chance and all of their enemies have an 80% chance to hit, this criticism might be valid.  The PCs are 'incompetent' and the oppoenents are 'competent', so things are very one-sided.  

Ultimately, relative ability matters more than specific success odds.  The hard part is regarding opposed rolls.  If the roll is based only on your abilities, and not those of your opponent, sometimes 'forcing' the other side to make the check is better.  Ie, if you have a 30% chance of 'sneaking', and your opponent has a 30% chance of 'perceiving' if you don't sneak, you're better off walking in normally and letting him fail his check...  But that wonkiness isn't directly the result of a roll-under system.  

I think the fact that roll under can be converted to roll over with minimal modification is damning enough - as long as degrees of success are used.

"If I could think of a genera not to immigrate with a percentile roll it is that."

...the fuck?