gG is simply proving a point:

A flat distribution of stupidity.

Quote from: baragei;733705gG is simply proving a point:

A flat distribution of stupidity.

* golf clap *

Quote from: gamerGoyf;733695You know what let's just have the abridged version of this because it's just going to be a waste of everyone's time. Those of you who understand why switching from THAC0 to BAB was an improvement already get it, good job. Those of you whose neckbeards are bristling with rage over that last sentence don't bother, I'm not willing to deal with this today.

I think what you are looking for is that you personally find it aesthetically unpleasing?   Because I have certainly never seen a player struggle.  If they have 60%, and I give +10% circumstance bonus, everyone seems to instantly know that means 70%.

gG is basically right.   First issue, if you say +10%, is that making it easier or harder?  Could be either.  If you add it to your skill modifier, it makes you better.  If you add it to your roll, it makes you worse.  If you write -20% to things that make you better at your task because you apply it to the die roll, it's counter intuitive...  Your chance is increasing but it's written as a negative.

If you apply everything to your skill (so bonuses are written as positives and penalties are written as negatives), then you have to potentially apply positives and negatives at the same time (for difficult tasks with circumstantial bonuses), so you're potentially refiguring your skill each time.  

All of these issues are relatively minor, but taken together, they detract from the mechanic.

Finally, most d100 systems use increments of 5%, so they don't take advantage of the one advantage of a day - more granular results.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733732gG is basically right.   First issue, if you say +10%, is that making it easier or harder?  Could be either.  If you add it to your skill modifier, it makes you better.  If you add it to your roll, it makes you worse.

The overwhelming majority of d100 games in existence apply modifiers directly to skill level, modifying the chance of success - a positive modifier increases your chance of success, and a negative reduces your chance. I can't think of any d100 system that modifies the result of the die roll. That would be counter-intuitive.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733732Finally, most d100 systems use increments of 5%, so they don't take advantage of the one advantage of a day - more granular results.

I suspect that you haven't played many d100 systems, or read one more current than Chaosium RuneQuest. Or looked at a d100 system produced within the past 10 years.

Right.  So you potentially have to recalculate your effective skill before rolling every time.

Quote from: K Peterson;733735I suspect that you haven't played many d100 systems, or read one more current than Chaosium RuneQuest. Or looked at a d100 system produced within the past 10 years.

I'm playing Deathwatch right now.  Starting attributes are not in increments of 5, but every modifier I've seen is.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733736Right.  So you potentially have to recalculate your effective skill before rolling every time.

Sure, it can depend on circumstances. Some d100 systems use a lot of situational modifiers while others, like OpenQuest or Renaissance, use fewer but rather significant bonuses or penalties.

A lot of other systems do this as well. Gurps, Traveller, D&D...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733737I'm playing Deathwatch right now.  Starting attributes are not in increments of 5, but every modifier I've seen is.

I'll admit: I don't have much familiarity with FFG's Rpgs to be able to comment. My experience has been with Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Star Frontiers, OpenQuest, Elric, Basic Roleplaying, etc.

Yeah, plenty of d100 systems use modifiers in factors of 5. But skill levels remain on a granular scale, and in some d100 games, contest-of-skills use the 'blackjack' method of resolution. And, in that case, every percentage point will 'count'.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733736Right.  So you potentially have to recalculate your effective skill before rolling every time.

And that is different from applying circumstantial modifiers under every other game system in what way?

Quote from: Old One Eye;733743And that is different from applying circumstantial modifiers under every other game system in what way?

Yeah, skill + modifiers + dice vs target number isn't really all that different from skill + modifiers, roll under.

The argument is very, very weak.

Crom's hairy nutsack.  The stupid, it burns us, Precious.

Quote from: NathanIW;733744Yeah, skill + modifiers + dice vs target number isn't really all that different from skill + modifiers, roll under.

The argument is very, very weak.

AND there would be nothing "counterintuitive" in roll+modifier under skill.

The first edition of the first game I played, Das Schwarze Auge, did just that: you succeeded if your rating was at least as high as a "competing number" that you generated by rolling a d20, sometimes modifying the result if the action was harder or easier than the norm. TSR's Alternity did the same thing using step dice to modify the roll of a d20. This approach imho is better than that traditionally used by BRP etc. because you never have to recalculate your ratings during play. In the end, however, these systems are all equivalent.

90 times of 100 "counterintuitive" to my ears sounds as "my belly-button is the centre of the world".

Buck Rogers used a roll under d100% system, but it did difficulty by multiplication.

Easy 2x
Average 1x
Difficult 1/2
Impossible 1/4

That would probably make people's minds explode today. Multiply by a fraction?

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;733353You're still misreading the article. It says that people move into and out of the elite group i.e. it's not static.

And suddenly you're talking about the system for character advancement as if it were somehow relevant to this discussion.

Mea culpa, though. I probably should have predicted that bit of stupid from you.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;733778And suddenly you're talking about the system for character advancement as if it were somehow relevant to this discussion.

Mea culpa, though. I probably should have predicted that bit of stupid from you.

Say what? The new anti-bell studies are about performance distribution, not "character advancement". There's probably a correlation between the two IMO, but people move in and out of the elite group based on their performance not their "level".

Look, I've got nothing more to say about variable performance vs. bell curves unless someone wants to accept the "dunk-tank challenge" (post #248), and present a set of real-world human performance data that resembles a bell. I've spent too much time addressing objections to my initial arguments already, most of which end up in subjective back-and-forth probability wank. This sub-topic can only move forward with real-world data and source citations IMO.