Quote from: deadDMwalking;733867As soon as you use degrees of success or other comparative it ceases to be less complicated.

It happens intuitively at the table top when you actually play.  A player will need a 45, roll a 44 and let out an audible sigh of relief.  Or if they get a 50, someone will exclaim about how they just missed it.  Or if they nail it with a 04, people will express jubilation.

If you're talking about mathematical strata, then it's the same on both sides.  You are comparing value X to value Y to find out the difference.  If I get a 127 and let's say that counts as 2 successes, because it's 20 more than 100, I've taken one number (100, the static TN) and another variable number (127, the result of my roll + skill + modifiers) and saw that they were different by 27.

Now let's say I have a skill of 48 and roll a 22.  What do you know?  I'm still comparing two numbers.

I'm still not going to play either of these though, because d100-roll-under works fine without it.  When someone rolls 71 and they needed 70, we can just take that into consideration when resolving things.

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.

Quote from: 3rik;733470Vortex (Doctor Who, Primeval, Rocket Age), genreDiversion 3E, Hyperborean Mice. I just get the impression there are a lot.

Plus:
CODA (Decipher Star Trek & Lord of the Rings), Iron Crown's Lord of the Rings Adventure Game, BESM Third Edition, *World (Dungeon World, Apocalypse World), PDQ (Questers of the Middle Realms, Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies, and others), Conspiracy of Shadows, QUERP, Tranchons & Traquons, Meikyuu Kingdom, SRS (Alshard Gaia, Alshard ff, Tenra War, and others), Sword World 2.0, Monster Maker (...Holy Axe, ...Resurrection, ...Legend), and my own Astrópía.

And that's just from looking at my shelf. I'd hazard a guess that 2d6 roll-over is the second-most used mechanism after d20 roll-over.

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.

Why do you consider that the essential characteristic of d100-roll-under systems when almost all actual d100 based games do not use it?

Why would anyone judge a rules mechanic based on how it interacts with other rules that it generally doesn't interact with?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;733890Plus:
CODA (Decipher Star Trek & Lord of the Rings), Iron Crown's Lord of the Rings Adventure Game, BESM Third Edition, *World (Dungeon World, Apocalypse World), PDQ (Questers of the Middle Realms, Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies, and others), Conspiracy of Shadows, QUERP, Tranchons & Traquons, Meikyuu Kingdom, SRS (Alshard Gaia, Alshard ff, Tenra War, and others), Sword World 2.0, Monster Maker (...Holy Axe, ...Resurrection, ...Legend), and my own Astrópía.

And that's just from looking at my shelf. I'd hazard a guess that 2d6 roll-over is the second-most used mechanism after d20 roll-over.

You may well be right.

Didn't ICE's LotR game use Rolemaster, by the way?

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.

For fuck's sake dude, keep your modifiers in multiples of 10.  No damn person struggles with 57 - 20.

The main problem as I see it is not that the maths be hard.  Rather, it is games that have too many modifiers to slog through in the first place.  The math behind it is not the issue for me, that I am applying discrete modifiers for different conditions in the first place sucks.  Just go with DDN-style dis/advantage and be done with it.

I found a previous thread about similar issues.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20489

Is this a matter of re-fighting an old edition war where Rolemaster fans call Runequest fans "grognards"?

My take is this:

On the off hand chance you opposed rolls or degrees of success are important to you and using a d100 is also important to you, go nuts.  It involves doing the exact same math as d100-roll-under but because the numbers go up, when two numbers are compared, you can tell yourself it's addition rather than subtraction, when it's actually just comparison.

I've got a table with new gamers right now and I can't imagine introducing such a convoluted idea as take adding a number to a d100 and then getting margin of success over a target number.  What a terrible, convoluted approach compared to "see that number, did you roll less than it?  Did you roll super low or super high?".

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733854Deathwatch 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.

Okay, so now you're claiming that

d100 vs. 55 + 20 - 30

is more difficult than

d100 + 55 + 20 - 30 vs. 100

That's a ridiculous claim. You're adding a whole extra mathematical operation, but claiming that it's easier because you're adding the numbers after the die roll instead of before the die roll.

It would take a virulent (and completely irrational) preference for performing arithmetic after a roll but not before the roll in order to convince yourself that doing three mathematical operations is easier than performing two mathematical operations. I'm still willing to accept that your YMMV based on this virulent preference, but the claim that you're expressing some sort of universal truth here is simply absurd.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733867Actually, 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.

And now you're claiming that

d100 - 55 + 20 - 30

is more difficult than

d100 + 55 + 20 - 30 - 100

Which, you'll note, is just as ridiculous as your previous claim.

Quote from: Bill;732083For people that calculating 20 percent is a burden, I had a solution.
First, don't calculate squat during play; only before to get it on the sheet.
Second, use the easiest calculation possible.
Third, don't use on the fly modifiers unless you absolutely must.


So I made it 50% and 10% percent.

So on your sheet, a 62 skill would just look like 62/31/6

Very easy to note at a glance when you roll.

No calculations.

Been there, done that, worked very well. Also I expressed really high expertise with skills > 100 (inspired from RQ Land of Ninja).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;733867As soon as you use degrees of success or other comparative it ceases to be less complicated.

Eh, I hate to dogpile, but compared to what? The model above works fine. Furthermore if you've established the norms of what critical, special, ordinary success mean, recognising degrees of success gets faster, not slower. Everyone agrees that rolling below 50% of your skill is one grade better than just passing by a few percent.

All this roll-and-add vs roll under is shifting around the mental burden, often from players to GM. How do you work out degrees of success with the roll-over mechanic? The GM has to decide what the TN is, and has to decide how many increments of roll-over equal what degree of success, and in doing so has to do his or her own mental arithmetic. There's an argument that roll vs TN increases cognitive burden, not reduces it.

Quote from: NathanIW;733889It happens intuitively at the table top when you actually play.  A player will need a 45, roll a 44 and let out an audible sigh of relief.  Or if they get a 50, someone will exclaim about how they just missed it.  Or if they nail it with a 04, people will express jubilation.

This is the selling point of d100. People know the stakes and the odds in advance, and the (critical) success is sweeter. There's no party like the "just rolled an 01" party.

Quote from: 3rik;733898Didn't ICE's LotR game use Rolemaster, by the way?

ICE did two Middle-earth RPGs, MERP (simplified RM) and LotR (using a 2d6 simplification of the MERP/RM mechanism, also used in their ill-fated solo adventure book series).



Some of their later Middle-earth modules were triple-statted for MERP, RM, and LotR.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;734008ICE did two Middle-earth RPGs, MERP (simplified RM) and LotR (using a 2d6 simplification of the MERP/RM mechanism, also used in their ill-fated solo adventure book series).



Some of their later Middle-earth modules were triple-statted for MERP, RM, and LotR.

I see. I was unaware.

Man...

:popcorn:

Quote from: NathanIW;733889It happens intuitively at the table top when you actually play.

Yup.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;734055Yup.

Hell yes.

Quote from: Omega;733886The 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.

I didn't start this thread.   Some people have come to the conclusion that d100 is a disdained mechanic.   It frequently is.  For reasons.  I've tried to explain those reasons.  

You may think that they are silly or wrong to dislike it, but if it weren't common, people wouldn't have developed a perception that it was a disdained mechanic.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;734008ICE did two Middle-earth RPGs, MERP (simplified RM) and LotR (using a 2d6 simplification of the MERP/RM mechanism, also used in their ill-fated solo adventure book series).



Some of their later Middle-earth modules were triple-statted for MERP, RM, and LotR.

Oh man, I remember that boxed set.