If T is always 100, it's pretty easy.  If T can vary, it's not as easy.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;733823And you agreed with it, so you can't blame people for making the comments they have made.

But I can blame people for not having deadDMwalking on their ignore lists yet. How much more is it going to take?

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;733782Say 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".

You can't figure out what the relationship between changes in a character's average performance and the character advancement systems would be? Seriously?

Is someone paying you to pretend to be illiterate on online forums? I hope they're paying you well. You're doing a marvelous job of it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733820If you roll a die, you have a variable.  Variable plus modifiers is easier for most people than variable compared to fixed value modified by variable values.

I'm not buying that d20 - 5 vs. 15 is harder than d20 vs. 15 + 5.

Harder for some people? Sure. Harder for everybody? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

I'm even less convinced that (d20 - 5 vs. 15 + 10) is harder than (d20 vs. 15 + 10 + 5), which would be the actual comparison since the virtually every "dice + stat + skill" system also features variable target numbers.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;733845You can't figure out what the relationship between changes in a character's average performance and the character advancement systems would be? Seriously?

The studies aren't about average performance you blithering idiot.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733840If T is always 100, it's pretty easy.  If T can vary, it's not as easy.

I'm sorry, but the one with T is not the d100-roll-under example.  

If you want a real game example that might help you understand what T is, The DC of skill rolls in 3.x or Pathfinder would be it.

So yes, T does vary.  Here's an example of it from the Pathfinder SRD:

Identify mineral, stone, or metal Dungeoneering 10
Determine slope Dungeoneering 15
Determine depth underground Dungeoneering 20
Identify dangerous construction Engineering 10
Determine a structure's style or age Engineering 15
Determine a structure's weakness Engineering 20
Here's my post again in case you want to give it another go:

Spoiler

R ≤ S + M

where
R is d100
S is skill
M is modifiers

vs

R + S + M ≥ T

Where

R is any dice roll you like
S is skill
M is modifiers
T is target number

In both approaches you take your skill (a number off your character sheet) and then you apply situational modifiers (numbers from the rules or GM/Player judgments about the situation) and then you either:

1) roll some dice and ask "is it equal to or less?"

2) roll some dice and add it to the total and then ask "is it equal to or more?" to the target (another number supplied by the rules or the GM).

How the fuck did Europe loose to you guys?

QuoteGamergoyf & DeadDMWalking elaborations on complications of elementary mathematics

How the fuck did Europe loose to you guys?

Deathwatch is a d100 roll under system. You have a skill and you roll under it on a d100.  For example, you might have Weapon Skill at 55.  To succeed at a weapon attack, you roll 55 or less and your attack hits and you roll damage.  You might have circumstances that make the task more difficult (such as thick fog) and circumstances that make it easier (flanking).  You apply those to your skill to determine what you need to roll less than.  If fog is -30 and flanking is +20, you make your attack against a TN of 45 (roll under).

It is easier for most people and mathematically equivalent to make the TN equal to 100.  Roll dice, add skill (with modifier).  In this example, it would be d100+45.  If you equal or exceed 100, you are successful.

To achieve a 100 or better, you must roll a 55 or better.  High rolls are therefore always good, and degrees of success are more easily apparent.

Long story short, roll under is a disdained mechanic in some circles.  It's not that it is too hard , it's that it could be easier without losing anything .

Considering all the people who dislike complex games, you'd think there would be more support for removing needless complexity.

So you honestly believe that taking 45 rolling d100 and getting a 57 and seeing if they add up to 100 or more is easier than figuring out that exact same 45 and just rolling and comparing?

Both approaches require figuring out the 45.  In a d100 roll under, that's where the figuring is done.  You just roll and compare.

In your TN = 100 system, you add on yet another step.

Quote from: deadDMwalkingConsidering all the people who dislike complex games, you'd think there would be more support for removing needless complexity.

Irony is awesome.

Quote from: Arminius;733842But I can blame people for not having deadDMwalking on their ignore lists yet. How much more is it going to take?

We need a function where if a sufficient number of people put somebody on an Ignore List, a beautiful woman goes to their house and punches them in the nuts so hard they go deaf.

Quote from: Old Geezer;733861We need a function where if a sufficient number of people put somebody on an Ignore List, a beautiful woman goes to their house and punches them in the nuts so hard they go deaf.

there are people (Seanchai comes to mind) whose nads would be permanently knuckle-imprinted.

Quote from: NathanIW;733856So you honestly believe that taking 45 rolling d100 and getting a 57 and seeing if they add up to 100 or more is easier than figuring out that exact same 45 and just rolling and comparing?

Both approaches require figuring out the 45.  In a d100 roll under, that's where the figuring is done.  You just roll and compare.

In your TN = 100 system, you add on yet another step.



Irony is awesome.

Actually, if you'd read my earlier posts on the subject, you'd realize that I've postulated that a straight comparison in 'roll under' is easier than adding against a fixed TN of 100.  As you note, it drops one step, so is clearly easier.  As soon as you use degrees of success or other comparative it ceases to be less complicated.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733854It is easier for most people

Why do you continue resorting to such a questionable premise when making your point? If you and your friends find that adding two numbers and comparing the result to another is easier than comparing a number to the sum of other two numbers, fine, nobody could argue with that. But where are the statistics on which you base your assertion about what people prefer? In the 00's there were a lot of games based on the d20 system, right; and in the 80's there were a lot based on the d100: so?

Okay, it's a disdained mechanic by people like me because even though both are easy, adding two digit numbers to other two digit numbers is easier than subtracting two sets of two - digit numbers.

The perception that the mechanic is disdained is because my position appears to be relatively common.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733881Okay, it's a disdained mechanic by people like me because even though both are easy, adding two digit numbers to other two digit numbers is easier than subtracting two sets of two - digit numbers.

The perception that the mechanic is disdained is because my position appears to be relatively common.

No. It appears to be disdained because internet eletists and morons bitch about it because they either cant grasp it, or someone told them to hate it.

The rest of the gaming world doesnt even know these nulls even exist.

If you dont like a system. Fine, say so. Dont go claiming its common when reality shows you are dead wrong.