Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;733263Sure, open a new thread, as the answer would have nothing to do with what I think of roll under %.

Done.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732264

QuoteThe linked article claims that bell curves don't apply to the distribution of results in the population at large because a small number of superstars show consistent performance at an exceptional level.

Actually the article doesn't say that at all, you're just making it up. Here's what it says:

Next up for Aguinis is some other studies that will try to examine what allows someone to become a superstar performer and stay there for a long period of time.

I like that you claimed the article didn't say that the superstars showed consistent performance at that level, but then immediately quoted the article saying exactly that.

It's not as ridiculous as the multiple pages of you screwing up basic baseball statistics, but it's pretty hilarious in its own right.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;732592Edit: There is built in railroading in the PF system. For example, certain creatures like dragons have unjustifiably high Perception scores

Saying that a door made of steel is harder to break through than a door made out of rice paper is not railroading.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732954That's still way better than 33%, which means you only find the door by mother-may-I.

33 and 1/3%

How do we roll that? And while we're at it: Magnets -how the fuck do they work?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;733300I like that you claimed the article didn't say that the superstars showed consistent performance at that level, but then immediately quoted the article saying exactly that.

You're still misreading the article. It says that people move into and out of the elite group i.e. it's not static. This means that even YOU can be a superstar under the right conditions - not sure why you're so determined to debunk that theory.

Fun stuff about baseball or using the plotting of a population as an indicator of an individual performance aside, the answer to the OP is that percentile roll under is not a disdained mechanic.  It is used by a vast number of game systems by a vast number of publishers.

d20+ vs TN would almost have to be the most popular due to the 600 lb gorilla of rpgs.

I struggle to think of another mechanical system more popular than percentile roll under.  It is widely used.

Quote from: Old One Eye;733382Fun stuff about baseball or using the plotting of a population as an indicator of an individual performance aside, the answer to the OP is that percentile roll under is not a disdained mechanic.  It is used by a vast number of game systems by a vast number of publishers.

d20+ vs TN would almost have to be the most popular due to the 600 lb gorilla of rpgs.

I struggle to think of another mechanical system more popular than percentile roll under.  It is widely used.

I've seen see quite the number of 2d6 roll-over systems of one variety or another. Might that be the third most popular core mechanic?

Quote from: 3rik;733391I've seen see quite the number of 2d6 roll-over systems of one variety or another. Might that be the third most popular core mechanic?

Yeah, certainly seems to have a long pedigree at least. (Traveller the first one, maybe?)

I like 2d6, but I can't think offhand of many RPG rules sets using it as the main thing. Traveller, Behind Enemy Lines, Zenobia, Barbarians of Lemuria? Maybe I'm just not acquainted enough with the current field.

I think I've probably encountered more using 3d6.

Anyway, if you want really small probabilities, then 5d6 offers 1 in 7776 along with the bell-curve hump some people value. Meanwhile, in a d% game I can have the same 100% plus buffer versus penalties that I can have with any other set of dice.

Is there a coincidental association of smaller chances in d% systems vs. others? I don't think so, but there could be. In any case, the average difference is almost certainly trivial compared with the difference between selected games -- whether using different dice or the same kind!

Quote from: Phillip;733421I like 2d6, but I can't think offhand of many RPG rules sets using it as the main thing. Traveller, Behind Enemy Lines, Zenobia, Barbarians of Lemuria? Maybe I'm just not acquainted enough with the current field.

Vortex (Doctor Who, Primeval, Rocket Age), genreDiversion 3E, Hyperborean Mice. I just get the impression there are a lot.

Quote from: Phillip;733421I think I've probably encountered more using 3d6.

Now this one I haven't encountered very often. The only one I'm familiar with is GURPS (3E Revised).

Quote from: 3rik;733470Now this one I haven't encountered very often. The only one I'm familiar with is GURPS (3E Revised).

HERO is a pretty big one. It's also the suggested system for attribute checks in BECMI (red DM's guide). How about that?

Quote from: 3rik;733391I've seen see quite the number of 2d6 roll-over systems of one variety or another. Might that be the third most popular core mechanic?

Stars Without Number is the only game I have that uses it, though I think that is a direct homage to Traveller?  Dunno, never played Traveller.

You have named enough games that I'm willing to take your word on its commonality.

I've given up on the earlier subthread I was involved in here.

But anyway, aren't you all forgetting dice pools with # successes as a measure of performance? That seems to have a lot of examples. Also, where it pops I think it can be assumed (not 100% but close) that the designer has other World of Darkness influences as well. In much the way that--I would postulate--d% is a good clue that the game is going to take a naturalistic approach. Not because d% is inherently good for that (or not only because it might be) but because RQ or CoC is where the designer saw it.

Which might give a clue as to who is put out by d% and why.

Quote from: Arminius;733573I've given up on the earlier subthread I was involved in here.

But anyway, aren't you all forgetting dice pools with # successes as a measure of performance? That seems to have a lot of examples. Also, where it pops I think it can be assumed (not 100% but close) that the designer has other World of Darkness influences as well. In much the way that--I would postulate--d% is a good clue that the game is going to take a naturalistic approach. Not because d% is inherently good for that (or not only because it might be) but because RQ or CoC is where the designer saw it.

Which might give a clue as to who is put out by d% and why.

Popular, yes, but that is a broad category rather than a specific mechanic.  It would be comparable to all roll under games.  You would have to pick one specific dice pool, say d10 add successes, to compare directly to percentile roll under.

I haven't played much of the various dice pool systems but as long as you're counting successes against a target number, the general shape and functionality looks the same. It does get weird when some games vary the target number and the number of successes needed. But I suspect that say The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, the various WW games, and Shadow Run have at least as much of a "genetic" relationship (in terms of designer influence) as Runequest and Dragonquest. Probably more.

Honestly it's not hard to see why roll under % would be "disdained mechanic" in certain circles. While it seems that since %'s are the way most people in the first world think of probability such systems would be elegant and easy to grok, but that really hasn't been the case historically. RPGs (except the super abstract ones) care about how good you are and how hard the task is, and representing that is super awkward in a roll under % system.