While researching systems pertaining to the Starcraft thread I was reminded of a refrain I've heard a few times over the years - that "roll a d100 under an attribute or % DC" is a widely disliked mechanic. I've never quite understood this sentiment.
Have you noticed this attitude in your circles? What's the reasoning?
Usually it comes from the same people who claim that AD&D or Warhammer is broken, because people had to/used to houserule them to "fill the gaps in the shitty old mechanic", and why should anyone play a different version of the game that what author intended, so I pay such opinions little heed.
I've had the misfortune to play WFRP2e (great people and premise, tedious setting and shit system), anything involving percentile dice deserves disdain.
I like roll under mechanics.
Works fine for me in the Chtulhu's.
Not enough games use the Unknown Armies "only roll if your character is under stress" and "this is what each %age band means in real-life terms, you don't need 100% to be an expert" advice, though. The percentages look low, but they're the percentages for doing things under pressure, not for just doing things.
Hell no. About the only systems I play are d100-roll-under. (Though, they're roll-under a skill %, not usually roll-under an attribute % - except in the case of Star Frontiers).
None of the gamers "in my circles" have ever had a problem with playing a percentile system, and many have found it quite intuitive. I can't recall anyone ever complaining about the mechanic.
There is unreasonable prejudice against it, just as there is against any resolution mechanic. In the end, it's all about personal taste.
-clash
some of my players like roll under % as their favorite, and very intuitive
Quote from: Ladybird;731173Works fine for me in the Chtulhu's.
Not enough games use the Unknown Armies "only roll if your character is under stress" and "this is what each %age band means in real-life terms, you don't need 100% to be an expert" advice, though. The percentages look low, but they're the percentages for doing things under pressure, not for just doing things.
Unknown Armies is a fucking masterpiece. Aside from it's own many merits it's got lots of sub-systems and ideas ripe for plucking to use with other percentile systems.
Quote from: Kiero;731169I've had the misfortune to play WFRP2e (great people and premise, tedious setting and shit system), anything involving percentile dice deserves disdain.
Weird, i think you deserve disdain.
I feel like a character sheet with skill percentages tells me a lot more than one with lists of + to hit, or + to save etc... Totally agree also with the idea from UA that these are the chances "under pressure", so a guy with a 60% skill might well be making a living off it.
One really nice thing that RuneQuest 6 does, which, to my mind, FINALLY ties in attributes in a 3-18 range to skills is that most skill starting percentages are based off the sum of two attributes. So for example a character who starts off pretty strong and nimble (STR 16, DEX 16) has a minimum chance, with no training, to succeed in unarmed combat, as the Unarmed skill will be STR+DEX %, so for that guy 32%. It means that naturally skilled but totally untrained characters can have up to 36% off the bat in Common Skills (as opposed to Professional Skills which can't be attempted without training). It feels like a really intuitive way to meld the characteristic ranges we just can't seem to get away from with a percentile system.
No, I haven't noticed any disdain in my circles. We played both AD&D and RuneQuest extensively back in the heyday of our gaming circle, and there was disdain for it.
I don't believe it's a universal disdain. As someone who plays games like Rogue Trader and generally enjoys themselves, I have a number of issues that would make me avoid them, personally, if designing a system from the ground up:
1) Pass/Fail - With no gradient in between, pass/fail mechanics tend to produce fairly boring results. Of course a "good GM" can make it more interesting, but I believe "good GM" gets thrown around in the same manner as "true scotsman".
2) Variable Target Numbers - In some systems, you end up with situations where a professional has a 50% chance of doing his 40+ hour a week trade correctly. It could be said that he's under pressure, but pressure could be part of his daily routine! A fireman doesn't have a 50% chance of missing a fire with a torrent of water just because fire is scary.
And thus, the variable target numbers are brought in. These are typically situational modifiers based on the difficulty, or contextual buffs, that add or take away up to 30%.
Where I take issue is that there's no internal logic as to where these apply, behind the GM screen, at least in the 40k RPGs. You're told to apply them with "common sense". This common sense tends to end up with big penalties on skills you know your players can cheese out and pump up to 95%, and bonuses on checks that will stall the railroad ride if failed. And the published adventures don't really teach you better practices.
3) Put Down The Dice - The obvious solution to #1 and #2 is only roll if the stakes are interesting, right? Well sure, if it works for your group. Often however, the percentile roll-under games are used at simulationist tables. There, if you're not using the rules you pay for (paid quite a bit in the case of Fantasy Flight Games's product lines), that's a lot of wasted money just to play cops & robbers.
EDIT: The preceding was pure opinion. As far as a Starcraft RPG would go, I would probably actually recommend hacking Deathwatch as the first step, regardless of my feelings.
Quote from: Kiero;731169I've had the misfortune to play WFRP2e (great people and premise, tedious setting and shit system), anything involving percentile dice deserves disdain.
Well that settles it, if Kiero hates it it must be good design.
Next thread?
I actually like percentile systems. Never understood why people have problems with them.
Some people REALLY like their d20s?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731165While researching systems pertaining to the Starcraft thread I was reminded of a refrain I've heard a few times over the years - that "roll a d100 under an attribute or % DC" is a widely disliked mechanic. I've never quite understood this sentiment.
Have you noticed this attitude in your circles? What's the reasoning?
Not to me. I am fond of the percent roll under mechanic.
Quote from: markfitz;731180One really nice thing that RuneQuest 6 does, which, to my mind, FINALLY ties in attributes in a 3-18 range to skills is that most skill starting percentages are based off the sum of two attributes.
Harnmaster, which is so similar to BRP that I think it must have its roots as a variant, has used something similar since its first edition. Skill bases for various skill categories are the average of 3 characteristics, often 1 counted 2x, one counted 1x, and then skills start at some multiplier of the SB.
I don't understand the fuss over needing to roll only for stressful situations. It makes perfect sense of course but the worry over it seems to come from a misperception that d% rolls are never modified. This is a detail that has nothing to do with the dice. Various percentile systems use either add/subtract modifiers or multiply/divide.
Benefits of d% roll-under:
Give a transparent view of your chances, where other approaches range from a little math all the way to nigh-incalculable (ORE)
Evenly granular detail. D20-based methods are have a moderately large "grain". Nd6 additive and dice-pool with counting successes vary from enormous "grain" to very fine depending on the portion of the curve you are comparing.
Lend themselves easily to an "experience check" system of advancement, where you improve a skill by rolling against it (sometimes with a modifier) and if you roll OVER, you improve.
For those who like pure roll-over systems, Frank Trollman presented a method of converting to roll-over on these boards, and argued some of the benefits. I guess the chief one was that you could use a DC-like approach to defining the difficulty of various actions. I'm not sure his method would translate some of the details/refinements found in some d% systems such as success levels, since I haven't looked at it too closely.
IIRC the old Ysgarth (2e? 3e?) used d% roll-high for some actions and so did the old High Fantasy (Dillow).
Quote from: hagbard;731185I actually like percentile systems. Never understood why people have problems with them.
This is the Internet. You could be giving away free money and some people would bitch.
Roll % under is a great mechanic, especially for new players. Simply saying "You are competent under normal circumstances, and this is your percentage chance of succeeding under stress, just like an ordinary driver can drive to the grocery store on a nice day with no problem" makes "Starship Piloting: 57%" instantly comprehensible.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731165I've never quite understood this sentiment.
It's pretentious jackholery, nothing more.
Quote from: Piestrio;731183Well that settles it, if Kiero hates it it must be good design.
Next thread?
That's pretty much my yardstick. :rotfl:
Quote from: Piestrio;731183Well that settles it, if Kiero hates it it must be good design.
It's amazing how often that works as a metric.
Quote from: markfitz;731180One really nice thing that RuneQuest 6 does, which, to my mind, FINALLY ties in attributes in a 3-18 range to skills is that most skill starting percentages are based off the sum of two attributes.
This was present in MRQ2 - and, I think in MRQ1 - RQ6's predecessors. Same designers, of course, between MRQ2 and RQ6. My point is just that this technique existed for a few years before RQ6 was published.
It's an approach that I wish would be incorporated into CoC.
Quote from: Piestrio;731183Well that settles it, if Kiero hates it it must be good design.
Next thread?
:hatsoff:
Yeah it really seems like you can eye-ball the character sheet and get a really good idea of just how good your guy is. When it's dice-pool, or d20+mods or whatever, there's no real absolute.
+1 also to the "skill-check system" comment, where a roll-over gives you an advance. It all seems very intuitive.
Other systems have many charms (picking up a whole handful of dice can be nice, and racking up bonuses to your d20 roll too), but they never have the sheer transparency of d% roll-under.
Quote from: Piestrio;731183Well that settles it, if Kiero hates it it must be good design.
Next thread?
Quote from: One Horse Town;731193That's pretty much my yardstick. :rotfl:
Quote from: Black Vulmea;731194It's amazing how often that works as a metric.
so I'm not the only one who thought that :)
Quote from: K Peterson;731195This was present in MRQ2 - and, I think in MRQ1 - RQ6's predecessors. Same designers, of course, between MRQ2 and RQ6. My point is just that this technique existed for a few years before RQ6 was published.
It's an approach that I wish would be incorporated into CoC.
Yeah, of course you're dead right. I sort of see MRQ2 as the dress-rehearsal for RQ6 at this point ...
I don't see any reason not to just throw it into CoC as well. It wouldn't break anything, and it would tie a character's primary stats into their skills pleasingly.
I played some Trail of Cthulhu recently, and while I quite like the simplicity of the mechanic, I found myself missing the percentile dice. Somehow Cthulh-esque antics aren't the same without it. Particularly the slow erosion of literally what PERCENT sane you are ...
Quote from: Ladybird;731173Works fine for me in the Chtulhu's.
Not enough games use the Unknown Armies "only roll if your character is under stress" and "this is what each %age band means in real-life terms, you don't need 100% to be an expert" advice, though. The percentages look low, but they're the percentages for doing things under pressure, not for just doing things.
Pretty much this.
I guarantee that 99% of the people who say "I don't like percentile systems" really mean "I don't like the way some people run percentile systems". A substantial portion would eat up a system where you roll a D20 instead, even if the math is near-identical (merely divided by 5).
Quote from: markfitz;731202I don't see any reason not to just throw it into CoC as well. It wouldn't break anything, and it would tie a character's primary stats into their skills pleasingly.
Sure, I've done it myself for a couple campaigns. It was entertaining breaking down the skills down into combinations of stats. With some, I used the EDU stat as well.
I just wish that with all the "improvements" coming along with CoC7e, that they'd use stat-derived-base-skill-levels rather than flat, universal base percentiles.
Quote from: Shauncat;7311821) Pass/Fail - With no gradient in between, pass/fail mechanics tend to produce fairly boring results. Of course a "good GM" can make it more interesting, but I believe "good GM" gets thrown around in the same manner as "true scotsman".
Not implicit in percentile systems; D20 stuff does this, for instance.
Quote2) Variable Target Numbers - In some systems, you end up with situations where a professional has a 50% chance of doing his 40+ hour a week trade correctly. It could be said that he's under pressure, but pressure could be part of his daily routine! A fireman doesn't have a 50% chance of missing a fire with a torrent of water just because fire is scary.
And thus, the variable target numbers are brought in. These are typically situational modifiers based on the difficulty, or contextual buffs, that add or take away up to 30%.
Situational modifiers aren't implicit to percentile systems either. D&D 3.X, especially at high levels, is infamous for the number of special modifiers you have to consider before you roll the damn dice.
QuoteWhere I take issue is that there's no internal logic as to where these apply, behind the GM screen, at least in the 40k RPGs. You're told to apply them with "common sense". This common sense tends to end up with big penalties on skills you know your players can cheese out and pump up to 95%, and bonuses on checks that will stall the railroad ride if failed. And the published adventures don't really teach you better practices.
This is nothing to do with the system as such and everything to do with bad GMing - which again, no system is immune to. A GM running a D20-based game who sets shitty target numbers, or a Vampire GM setting shitty difficulty numbers, is basically doing the same thing.
I take the point that some percentile games have bad GMing advice. But so do most White Wolf games, so do many D20-based games. Again, this isn't something implicit in percentile systems.
Quote3) Put Down The Dice - The obvious solution to #1 and #2 is only roll if the stakes are interesting, right? Well sure, if it works for your group. Often however, the percentile roll-under games are used at simulationist tables. There, if you're not using the rules you pay for (paid quite a bit in the case of Fantasy Flight Games's product lines), that's a lot of wasted money just to play cops & robbers.
This is a huge misunderstanding of "simulationist" (it doesn't mean "rules-heavy" or "roll all the time").
I've literally never been at a table running a percentile system - WH40K, BRP/Cthulhu, whatever - where people haven't been happy to set aside the dice for long stretches.
And again, this isn't something implicit in percentile systems.
There is literally no objection you have raised which doesn't rear its head in non-percentile systems, and which I notice happening consistently in percentile systems. 0/10, try again.
Quote from: K Peterson;731205I just wish that with all the "improvements" coming along with CoC7e, that they'd use stat-derived-base-skill-levels rather than flat, universal base percentiles.
I kind of wish they would too. It seems so obvious now that you just wonder why someone didn't come up with it back in the day. When Loz and Pete were working on MRQ2, you just know it must have made their bloody week when they decided to put in that tweak.
Hell, who knows, maybe they had been houseruling it that way for years, and just no one had ever noticed ...
But as someone's pointed out, Hârn, which must have grown out of similar concerns as BRP, HAD already been doing something similar ...
(I feel like that goes for world-building issues too: the growth of Hârn out of a dissatisfaction with D&D economics and nuts and bolts medieval sociology system, RuneQuest/Glorantha more from the spiritual/cultural ecology side ... but that's all for another thread)
I thought RQ2 had stat-derived skill bases for a lot of stuff?
Either way, with COC I think they wanted to reflect the distinction where in the modern era most of your professional skills are a matter of education and training, and there are a lot of pursuits you can't simply expect to pick up and bluff you way through without any prior training, hence your skills coming from your Education and Intelligence pools rather than being directly derived from stats.
Quote from: Warthur;731211I thought RQ2 had stat-derived skill bases for a lot of stuff?
RQ2 (Chaosium) had various categories where stats provided positive and negative modifiers to a grouping of skills. The base skill levels themselves, however, were a flat value.
QuoteEither way, with COC I think they wanted to reflect the distinction where in the modern era most of your professional skills are a matter of education and training, and there are a lot of pursuits you can't simply expect to pick up and bluff you way through without any prior training, hence your skills coming from your Education and Intelligence pools rather than being directly derived from stats.
I don't disagree with this approach, especially for specialized skills that require education and training. But for more every-man skills, I personally like some impact from attributes.
Roll under is something that I love and hate in equal measure. On its face, it's simple and easy to use. 70% in a skill means you have a 70% chance to succeed. Roll and see. Much easier to use, in theory, than the variable target numbers of the d20 system or dice pools in World of Darkness. However, what usually happens is that things get mucked up when people want to introduce complications. Shifting difficulty levels, degrees of success, special mechanics, etc.
When done well, d% roll under is great. When not done well, it's a headache.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;731214Roll under is something that I love and hate in equal measure. On its face, it's simple and easy to use. 70% in a skill means you have a 70% chance to succeed. Roll and see. Much easier to use, in theory, than the variable target numbers of the d20 system or dice pools in World of Darkness. However, what usually happens is that things get mucked up when people want to introduce complications. Shifting difficulty levels, degrees of success, special mechanics, etc.
When done well, d% roll under is great. When not done well, it's a headache.
I honestly prefer roll-under systems to roll-over systems because they are self-referential.
No asking the GM "Do I succeed?"
But yes, modifiers need to be attached to EITHER the roll or the stat/skill/etc... not both and the game in general needs to be well thought out.
The majority of percentile based rules systems I've seen were poorly implemented, either in design or in play. Was it the game? Was the GM? I don't know and don't care. I just avoid the damned things because they simply weren't my idea of a good time. If this is "pretentious jackholery" which annoys BV, that's a bonus.
Well, generally I don't like the high whiff factor versions like AD&D, Runequest 2 and to a lesser extent 3. I don't mind as much in WHFRP because it's very much in keeping with the tone of the game. Here, even the odds shit on your character.
I do like percentile systems though there is a bit of sameishness to them. I always think they'd work just a little better with multiplicative modifiers, but I've never found an implementation that I felt would be acceptable to peoplt who think one plus one is too much math.
I love roll-under systems, because they tend to provide a more natural hard-cap. I especially love percentiles, because they are the single most odds-transparent mechanic there is.
My wife hates the whole idea of roll-under so much we had a massive row when I attempted to discuss Roulade's mechanics, and that's why the latest revision of 1.1 includes an alternate %+d100 vs. 100 rule for the roll-high set.
Quote from: markfitz;731210I kind of wish they would too. It seems so obvious now that you just wonder why someone didn't come up with it back in the day.
It wouldn't have worked in original RQ because those skills were always in multiples of 5% (to make the math easier). It's adjustment tables made more sense since a 13-16 was +5% whereas a 17 or 18 was +10% or twice that. Using the raw stat undervalues high stats.
Anyway, Elfquest (Chaosium '84) generated initial skill values by adding ability scores. As did FGU's Bushido from '79. So it's nothing new.
Two knocks on % roll low:
-Unnecessary granularity only serves to make math harder.
-Forcing you to roll two dice to determine success means it is more difficult to roll for multiple characters at the same time. Slowing resolution of large battles.
Objecting to d% roll under-mechanics could mean you have a problem with either d%, roll under, or both. Objecting to d% usually has to do with considering the granularity too fine for certain purposes. There's no valid reason for objecting to roll under mechanics except the fact that comparing die roll results can get a bit trickier. The black jack method gets rid of this.
In me experience there's not a notably large group of people who object to d% roll under.
[pet peeve]
Quote from: Warthur;731206(...)literally(...)
literally(...)
"Literally": the new apostrophe...
[/pet peeve]
I don't get what the fuss is all about. Also I'm pretty sure we've already had this thread.
If you don't like roll-under, you can use 1d10+skill level against 100.
If you want degrees of success, you can use skill level-dice roll, blackjack, or the above-mentioned roll-over.
Percentiles are about as intuitivo as they come.
Quote from: Kiero;731169I've had the misfortune to play WFRP2e (great people and premise, tedious setting and shit system), anything involving percentile dice deserves disdain.
Care to elaborate?
Quote from: Old Geezer;731191This is the Internet. You could be giving away free money and some people would bitch.
The truth.
Quote from: 3rik;731226[pet peeve]
"Literally": the new apostrophe...
[/pet peeve]
He used it correctly - either he's never experienced those problems indeed, or, the use of literally as an intensifier of a description has grown to the point it is pretty much accepted literary/conversational device.
Quote from: Old Geezer;731191Roll % under is a great mechanic, especially for new players. Simply saying "You are competent under normal circumstances, and this is your percentage chance of succeeding under stress, just like an ordinary driver can drive to the grocery store on a nice day with no problem" makes "Starship Piloting: 57%" instantly comprehensible.
That's what I've always thought.
I don't get why people don't like roll under percentiles, but they probably play other games that have a very good skill resolution system that I don't get either.
I don't like BRP's roll-under d% Parry roll, which is independent of how good the attack was. For that reason playing Runequest we switched to skill+d% opposed roll, minimum 100% to succeed, otherwise beat the parry roll to hit.
Apart from opposed checks, roll under d% works ok.
Quote from: S'mon;731233I don't like BRP's roll-under d% Parry roll, which is independent of how good the attack was. For that reason playing Runequest we switched to skill+d% opposed roll, minimum 100% to succeed, otherwise beat the parry roll to hit.
Apart from opposed checks, roll under d% works ok.
One way I handled opposed rolls was to use 'making the roll by 1/2, and by 1/10th break points for how well one did.
For example, if one person makes a roll by half, he wins if the other guy did not make it by half.
Its fairly simple to note 1/2 and 1/10th at a glance.
I've had one of my players raise an eyebrow when I first presented my group with a roll-under system, but it started to make sense to him soon enough.
Opposed checks are a breeze using the blackjack method. You can also compare margins of success.
Quote from: The Butcher;731227Also I'm pretty sure we've already had this thread.
I apologize if we have. I used the search function, but I find it a bit finnicky and I may have missed something.
Quote from: Bill;731236One way I handled opposed rolls was to use 'making the roll by 1/2, and by 1/10th break points for how well one did.
For example, if one person makes a roll by half, he wins if the other guy did not make it by half.
Its fairly simple to note 1/2 and 1/10th at a glance.
This is not particularly useful since they may well both roll within the same margin. However, this *is* a valid method to determine level of success.
Quote from: 3rik;731226[pet peeve]
"Literally": the new apostrophe...
[/pet peeve]
Not making space, not an exaggeration or hyperbole: I genuinely did mean to say that, without exception, I've never been at a table using a percentile system where people weren't happy to go for a stretch without the dice and not a single one of Shauncat's objections are unique to percentile systems, or even especially pervasive within them compared to other types of system.
Quote from: 3rik;731238I've had one of my players raise an eyebrow when I first presented my group with a roll-under system, but it started to make sense to him soon enough.
Opposed checks are a breeze using the blackjack method. You can also compare margins of success.
Either margin of success or blackjack works for me. I'm running Pendragon at the moment, which isn't percentile but is basically BRP divided by 5 and with traits and passions tacked on, and it uses a blackjack-style system for opposed rolls which has really sold me on the merits of blackjack systems (the important one being that you don't have to wait while people work out their margin of success - simply consult the number, check that it's equal to or under the skill, and yer done).
The number of RL gamers I've met who disliked percentile roll-under enough to actually diminish their enjoyment of a game can be counted on one hand, and none of them are active roleplayers (online discussion / probability wank is a different beast).
When someone starts yammering on about "bell curves" and other such nonsense, it signals to me that they really don't get the point of RPGs and should be categorized a "backup" on my player roster. This has proven to be a 100% reliable indicator thus far.
Roll Under D100 is a great design choice because its accessibility by new players and they automatically understand the odds of success for any given action. Moreso, the speed of dice roll to determination of success / failure is automatic which helps to speed up gameplay.
But if it doesn't work for you or your players, that's fine too.
Quote from: 3rik;731244This is not particularly useful since they may well both roll within the same margin. However, this *is* a valid method to determine level of success.
If they both roll within the same margin, the one who rolled lower wins.
It can do both actually.
I agree with you Warthur, my complaints were not unique to d100 mechanics, and are not generally "table problems". Rogue Trader is the longest lasting campaign I've been in, and none of those were ever an issue we at the table had to deal with. I think I just wanted to come up with something outside of the "I like/disdain percentile roll-under" partisan reply.
Quote from: Bill;731254If they both roll within the same margin, the one who rolled lower wins.
It can do both actually.
So it's basically lowest roll wins, with success levels added. Not my preference but I guess it works, though I think it may fail to take into account the difference in skill level at certain values. I prefer blackjack or margin of success because it automatically benefits the player with the higher skill level.
I apologize for my ignorance, but what is the blackjack system?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731259I apologize for my ignorance, but what is the blackjack system?
Whoever rolls highest and still passes the check wins.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731259I apologize for my ignorance, but what is the blackjack system?
Highest roll that's still below the target number wins (e.g. RQ6).
I agree, to a degree, with some of the potential issues people have pointed out.
But I suspect that a big issue is probably just that percentile systems have now been around forever and it's very hard for any designer to pass it off as new and exciting design.
As with others here, I will immediately say "Unknown Armies" did it best so far, though I have a nostalgic love for WHFRP 1st, despite it's warts.
I have no problem with roll under % as a concept, but I have had almost universal problems with GMs and those systems: Want to climb up a ladder, on a dry day, in good light? Roll your unmodified climb skill.... WTF!
Of perhaps a couple dozen GMs using such systems over the years, at best only two seemed to implement them in a remotely fun way for me. And since I'm kind of a bell-curve snob as a GM, I seldom run d% roll under, though I have considered writing one that was implemented as a bell curve.
I do like that you can track fine amounts of incremental growth in a d% system, and that you can use the dice in so many ways, such as using the one's die for chance, doubles for extra stuff, and other tricks. Or you can just round to 5% and roll a d20 and certainly come close enough.
Quote from: Brander;731285As with others here, I will immediately say "Unknown Armies" did it best so far, though I have a nostalgic love for WHFRP 1st, despite it's warts.
I think my favourite d100 roll-under implementations would be d00Lite (BareBones Fantasy, Covert ops) and Renaissance/OpenQuest.
Quote from: Brander;731285I have no problem with roll under % as a concept, but I have had almost universal problems with GMs and those systems: Want to climb up a ladder, on a dry day, in good light? Roll your unmodified climb skill.... WTF!
This goes for any system and has little to do with the concept of d% roll under, though.
Quote from: Brander;731285Of perhaps a couple dozen GMs using such systems over the years, at best only two seemed to implement them in a remotely fun way for me. And since I'm kind of a bell-curve snob as a GM, I seldom run d% roll under, though I have considered writing one that was implemented as a bell curve.
A flat probability "curve" leads to swingy results, which emulates a setting that feels uncaring and less predictable. I like using d% roll-under for this.
Some one has a problem with % rolls? This is news to me. Not saying it is perfect, but it is one of the best dice rolling systems out there.
Quote from: Brander;731285I have no problem with roll under % as a concept, but I have had almost universal problems with GMs and those systems: Want to climb up a ladder, on a dry day, in good light? Roll your unmodified climb skill.... WTF!
No rule or dice system cures stupid.
Quote from: Old Geezer;731292No rule or dice system cures stupid.
Thus the well known and fable truth is told. No really there is no cure for stupid.
Quote from: 3rik;731289I think my favourite d100 roll-under implementations would be d00Lite (BareBones Fantasy, Covert ops) and Renaissance/OpenQuest.
I'm surprisingly unfamiliar with those, thanks for pointing them out. Gone are the days when I owned just about everything.
Quote from: 3rik;731289A flat probability "curve" leads to swingy results, which emulates a setting that feels uncaring and less predictable. I like using d% roll-under for this.
Good point, and might be why the best d% experiences I've had were with Call of Cthulhu.
Quote from: 3rik;731289This goes for any system and has little to do with the concept of d% roll under, though.
Quote from: Old Geezer;731292No rule or dice system cures stupid.
No argument. Though Unknown Armies did try to idiot proof the concept by stating that the percentages were only for when under stress or the like.
Quote from: Brander;731294No argument. Though Unknown Armies did try to idiot proof the concept by stating that the percentages were only for when under stress or the like.
Which, as a fan of BRP since RQ2 has ALWAYS been my assumption of how it worked and how I've seen it expressed in the community around those games. Unfortunately it just wasn't spelled out in detail in any of the rulebooks.
Heck, my original AD&D DM didn't make us roll for stuff that wasn't important or under duress.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731249When someone starts yammering on about "bell curves" and other such nonsense, it signals to me that they really don't get the point of RPGs and should be categorized a "backup" on my player roster. This has proven to be a 100% reliable indicator thus far.
Most of my favorite games percentile-based at the core... but sadly one guy in our Saturday group has issues with such games. He yammered a bunch of reasons at me that sorted down to just being a matter of taste (and a bit of superstition I think).
I suspect that it's just too simple for him... that he prefers the Advanced Numberwang of games like Champions and Earthdawn.
Also, percentiles are not a particularly cute or clever mechanic these days... so it doesn't get any points on the hipster scale either.
Damn, all of this talk is making me want to start a BRP game using the original 16-page booklet.
Multiply Attribute by 1-5 for percentage chance on non-skills and BANG! there you go!
I'm new here and, at the moment, pretty much only play d100 based games (right now Runequest 2nd edition and Call of Cthulhu, though I have played a ton of other games over the years) so I figured this would be a good a thread as any to start posting in.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731249The number of RL gamers I've met who disliked percentile roll-under enough to actually diminish their enjoyment of a game can be counted on one hand, and none of them are active roleplayers (online discussion / probability wank is a different beast).
When someone starts yammering on about "bell curves" and other such nonsense, it signals to me that they really don't get the point of RPGs and should be categorized a "backup" on my player roster. This has proven to be a 100% reliable indicator thus far.
Not a bad approach.
The thing about a bell curve is that you still, in the end, have a percentage chance for success equal to the number of successful die results added up. So if you're rolling 3d6 and need a 11 or better, it's statistically identical to roll under 50% on a d100.
Quote from: Brander;731285I have no problem with roll under % as a concept, but I have had almost universal problems with GMs and those systems: Want to climb up a ladder, on a dry day, in good light? Roll your unmodified climb skill.... WTF!
Quote from: Old Geezer;731292No rule or dice system cures stupid.
Yeah, Brander's point literally has nothing to do with what dice you happen to be picking up at the time.
I had some new people in my last RQ session and they found it incredibly straight forward when they saw the percentage on their sheets. In the edition I'm playing (1980) even after initial training, lots of skills are just terrible, which has actually been great fun as the players concentrate on their relatively few strengths and avoid dangerous situations rather than charge into them blindly.
At the beginning of the session after the new players made their characters, I asked them what their parry skill was (20% & 30%) and then asked them how many hit points they had in their locations (5 or so on average) and then asked them how much damage their weapons did (1d10 and 1d6+2). You tend to approach things differently when you only have a 30% chance of blocking and an average hit with a typical weapon is going to disable your arm or leg or knock you unconscious and make you bleed out.
So I even consider the tendency of d100 roll-under systems to have really low skill levels (WFRP1&2 are like this as well) to be features as well. It really forces some careful thinking and a concentration on describing what you're doing rather than just relying on skill rolls to lend some sort of authority to described actions.
And again, this could be just as true with any dice being used. For example, if you're rolling a d20 + skill and you need a 20, that's 10%, but there's something about seeing 10% on your character sheet that communicates the odds far, far more clearly :D
Roll under percentile is my preferred mechanic. Quick and easy.
Anyone claiming disdain for it likely never tried it and is just parroting some moron.
55% chance of success. Roll 55 or less. Bout as easy as it gets.
Back in the mid-1990's White Wolf put out a playtest packet for a DUNE-ish space opera game called EXILE. The game never saw fruition.
It had an interesting and clever quick-and-dirty system: It was percentile, with the number on your "Tens" die as your number of successes. That is, if you had a skill of 56% and rolled a 32 =3 successes. Had a skill of 96% and rolled a 76= 7 successes. A "0"=10 and, IIRC, allowed you to re-roll and add and new successes.
Quote from: NathanIW;731302The thing about a bell curve is that you still, in the end, have a percentage chance for success equal to the number of successful die results added up. So if you're rolling 3d6 and need a 11 or better, it's statistically identical to roll under 50% on a d100.
Exactly, no matter how many dice you cram into your fists, games still come down to a percentage chance of success in the end. It would be fairly trivial to switch Champions from 3d6 to d100 (or d20, or d10). The bell curve isn't what makes it Champions, it's the power-buy system and combat moves. Swap 3d6 for percentiles and it would still be essentially the same game. A few percentile points of variance in the stat array is nothing compared to the effect of a GM's rulings, player choices etc. on the feel of a game.
Quote from: Brander;731285I have no problem with roll under % as a concept, but I have had almost universal problems with GMs and those systems: Want to climb up a ladder, on a dry day, in good light? Roll your unmodified climb skill.... WTF!
But, as someone who has failed that roll in real life (I've also fallen walking from one end of the room to the other) while trying to step on the first rung of a ladder... Failure CAN happen...
Quote from: Old Geezer;731292No rule or dice system cures stupid.
Forcing someone in a game to make such rolls is stupid... I make these types of failures in real life all the time... I don't want to play them out in a game...
I really like Roll Under Percentile mechanics. I much prefer them to Dice Pools.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;731312I really like Roll Under Percentile mechanics. I much prefer them to Dice Pools.
It really depends on the type of dice pool for me. For counting successes and whatnot? I agree. But I prefer the dice pools that are similar to the RISK mechanic than successes. I.e., a dice pool that may have 2d6 and a d10, and when you roll, take the highest # appearing and compare to the opponent's highest. That's my favorite mechanic because it has both attackers and defenders active in combat, and when player's are rolling dice when they are attacked as well as when they are attacking, they are involved in the game and not building dice towers.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;731321It really depends on the type of dice pool for me. For counting successes and whatnot? I agree. But I prefer the dice pools that are similar to the RISK mechanic than successes. I.e., a dice pool that may have 2d6 and a d10, and when you roll, take the highest # appearing and compare to the opponent's highest. That's my favorite mechanic because it has both attackers and defenders active in combat, and when player's are rolling dice when they are attacked as well as when they are attacking, they are involved in the game and not building dice towers.
Dice Pools has always been the one mechanic I have trouble with the most. I don't know why. The ONLY Dice Pool based system I really love is the Ubiquity system. But honestly, I think that has a lot to do with the Ubiquity Dice.
I kind of struggle to see how one can dislike both roll under and d[number > then 10ish] systems as a general principle.
I get the argument that one might be easier to understand than the other (I'd think for most people "roll under" would be easier) but in pure action resolution terms they're so similar that it's hard to see how one could strongly prefer one or the other.
Quote from: tanstaafl48;731328I kind of struggle to see how one can dislike both roll under and d[number > then 10ish] systems as a general principle.
I get the argument that one might be easier to understand than the other (I'd think for most people "roll under" would be easier) but in pure action resolution terms they're so similar that it's hard to see how one could strongly prefer one or the other.
You're assuming "logic" enters into this.
% is easy and makes me happy.
Perhaps it's the easy bit that others don't like?
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;731218If this is "pretentious jackholery" . . .
It is.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;731218. . . which annoys BV . . .
It doesn't.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;731218. . . that's a bonus.
Game over. No replay.
Sorry, Charlie.
Quote from: NathanIW;731302Yeah, Brander's point literally has nothing to do with what dice you happen to be picking up at the time.
All I was trying to note was that in my experience d% systems were poorly implemented by nearly all the GMs I played with, which has/had negatively impacted my perception of them. It's an explanation, not a counterpoint of any kind.
That said, when so many GMs did it wrong in my experience, I'm inclined to want it explained better, as we saw in Unknown Armies, which went a very long ways towards making me more open to d% systems.
Also the failure mechanics can matter as well. If a single failure is just a setback, not falling to your death, then a lower percentage skill can be much more acceptable, since it ends up being more how long it takes you to succeed. Where "stress" can mean that you don't have that much time and you may not succeed in time.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731310Exactly, no matter how many dice you cram into your fists, games still come down to a percentage chance of success in the end. ...
While true, it can matter a lot in how you get there. Bell curves can certainly impact the feel of a game. An identical modifier to a skill in the middle of a curve is much greater than to a skill at the extremes and it's much simpler to model a bell curve with a multiple randomizer sum instead of a variable modifier for skills in the middle versus the extremes.
As an example, going from a skill of 11 to 13 in a 3d6 system is a much greater change than going from 15 to 18 and this, to designers who desire/agree, more accurately models diminishing returns from high skills without having to work out what exact percentage change should be applied to get the same effect.
None of this is a knock on d% but it can be a valid design decision depending on exactly what a given designer wishes to model.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;731332% is easy and makes me happy.
Perhaps it's the easy bit that others don't like?
I think that's part of it. It's just too obvious and out in the open... there's less street cred for 'rules mastery' on a % game.
Quote from: Simlasa;731340I think that's part of it. It's just too obvious and out in the open... there's less street cred for 'rules mastery' on a % game.
Part of it may be that some gamers cant read percentile dice to save their lives.
Some will deliberately read 00 as zero. Some cant figure the 10s and 1s.
And its probably these types who are bitching about % roll under.
Or a great example of BGG at at its best.
"I hate percentile dice because the d10 is biased to roll 5.5."
I wish I were making that line up. Really.
Quote from: Brander;731336All I was trying to note was that in my experience d% systems were poorly implemented by nearly all the GMs I played with, which has/had negatively impacted my perception of them. It's an explanation, not a counterpoint of any kind.
That said, when so many GMs did it wrong in my experience, I'm inclined to want it explained better, as we saw in Unknown Armies, which went a very long ways towards making me more open to d% systems.
I get what you're saying. I'm dealing with early Runequest right now and the text in the skill section isn't as clear or robust as I would like. I could totally see how if someone read the rules with the idea that there were only two options, total success and total failure, and that you never took the situation into account, that they could want to play it that way.
There's some modifiers listed here and there, like how to take into consideration the quality of the lock when someone tries to pick it, but it'd be easy to get into the habit of not ever using anything but the player's skill, straight up.
Quote from: Warthur;731211Either way, with COC I think they wanted to reflect the distinction where in the modern era most of your professional skills are a matter of education and training, and there are a lot of pursuits you can't simply expect to pick up and bluff you way through without any prior training, hence your skills coming from your Education and Intelligence pools rather than being directly derived from stats.
I don't know. I tend to think that character creation in CoC was meant to be as quick as possible, given that it's a high-lethality game and that the differences between humans are negligible in the Great (Old) Scheme of (Elder) Things. After all CoC's system is a stripped-down version of RuneQuest's, with skills that don't exceed 100 etc.
Quote from: Brander;731337As an example, going from a skill of 11 to 13 in a 3d6 system is a much greater change than going from 15 to 18 and this, to designers who desire/agree, more accurately models diminishing returns from high skills without having to work out what exact percentage change should be applied to get the same effect.
I like bell curves very much when used to randomly generate character stats, since bell curves describe how characteristics are distributed among a population. When implemented in resolution mechanics, they don't make as much sense, unfortunately*: while it can be very nice (in some but not all settings) how a high skill gives you diminishing returns as its rating exceeds the average result rolled on the dice and approaches the highest possible result, it's open to endless debates if the increasing returns a low skill gives you as its rating approaches the average result resemble anything real. The mechanics can be defended by arguing that it models how you need a decent level of proficiency to be able to use tools profitably, while a master of a skill can get along without tools just as fine; but it also fails to "represent" how in many daily activities you just need a basic level of proficiency to get by ("a little can go a long way").**
* I'm not saying I don't like
games that use such mechanics.
** IIRC, Hero accounts for this facet by having the lowest target number for a skilled character be 11- on 3d6.
Quote from: Warthur;731204I guarantee that 99% of the people who say "I don't like percentile systems" really mean "I don't like the way some people run percentile systems".
I don't give gamers that much credit. I've always presumed "I don't like percentile systems" to mean "It's not what I'm used to playing so it's automatically weird and it sucks."
Quote from: Ravenswing;731347I've always presumed "I don't like percentile systems" to mean "It's not what I'm used to playing so it's automatically weird and it sucks."
Which is also the meaning of "game X's system is not intuitive".
I only have found people who dislike % systems in Internet discussions. I haven't found them in real life. That's my anecdotical evidence, right there.
Quote from: Brander;731337As an example, going from a skill of 11 to 13 in a 3d6 system is a much greater change than going from 15 to 18 and this, to designers who desire/agree, more accurately models diminishing returns from high skills without having to work out what exact percentage change should be applied to get the same effect.
Bell curves might change the way a game feels when sitting back and theorizing about it, but when players are rolling the bones they're rarely thinking about diminishing returns at each end of the spectrum.
Actually, I would even argue that a more realistic method of modelling diminishing returns is by increasing the XP cost of skill improvement as proficiency increases e.g. 40KRP games, Ars Magica and BRP. It's not realistic IMO to have diminishing returns at the low end of the spectrum.
I don't have any problem with them. If the mechanic does its job and isn't completely borked then whats the big deal?
I find diminishing returns at the end of the spectrum overrated. I also tend to think that a +whatever situational bonus should be equally beneficial whatever level of skill you are at.
Also, it occurs to me that BRP-type percentile systems actually DO have a bell curve when it comes to increasing skills, which I would argue is actually where you want the bell curve to be. At low skill levels it is unlikely you will succeed (in order to get an experience check), but likely you will pass the experience check. At high skill levels you will probably get the check but probably won't increase your skill from it. At middling levels you have medium odds of both earning and passing the check. If you plot y = x(100-x), which is the probability that you will succeed a roll at skill x and then pass an experience check on it, you get - guess what! - a nice bell curve.
Quote from: Warthur;731356Also, it occurs to me that BRP-type percentile systems actually DO have a bell curve when it comes to increasing skills, which I would argue is actually where you want the bell curve to be. At low skill levels it is unlikely you will succeed (in order to get an experience check), but likely you will pass the experience check. At high skill levels you will probably get the check but probably won't increase your skill from it. At middling levels you have medium odds of both earning and passing the check. If you plot y = x(100-x), which is the probability that you will succeed a roll at skill x and then pass an experience check on it, you get - guess what! - a nice bell curve.
Cool!
Quote from: Warthur;731356Also, it occurs to me that BRP-type percentile systems actually DO have a bell curve when it comes to increasing skills, which I would argue is actually where you want the bell curve to be. At low skill levels it is unlikely you will succeed (in order to get an experience check), but likely you will pass the experience check. At high skill levels you will probably get the check but probably won't increase your skill from it. At middling levels you have medium odds of both earning and passing the check. If you plot y = x(100-x), which is the probability that you will succeed a roll at skill x and then pass an experience check on it, you get - guess what! - a nice bell curve.
Good point, classic BRP does actually have a bell curve at the low end, now that you mention it, although RQ6 and other variants don't restrict XP rolls to passed tests (they're more like an "inverse hockey stick" than a bell curve).
If one really wanted to model diminished returns at the low end realistically, you'd have to account for task difficulty and allow for advancement on failed rolls. Unskilled people learn from simple tasks meanwhile complex tasks are over their heads, whereas skilled people wouldn't learn anything from simple tasks. Burning Wheel sort of does that.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731353Bell curves might change the way a game feels when sitting back and theorizing about it, but when players are rolling the bones they're rarely thinking about diminishing returns at each end of the spectrum.
Actually, I would even argue that a more realistic method of modelling diminishing returns is by increasing the XP cost of skill improvement as proficiency increases e.g. 40KRP games, Ars Magica and BRP. It's not realistic IMO to have diminishing returns at the low end of the spectrum.
I got away with it in a percentile system by using an action table with a hand tuned diminishing return curve. :)
QuoteThis was present in MRQ2 - and, I think in MRQ1 - RQ6's predecessors. Same designers, of course, between MRQ2 and RQ6. My point is just that this technique existed for a few years before RQ6 was published.
Indeed it was. We tweaked it for MRQ2 and then tweaked a bit more for RQ6. But the concept was also there in Chaosium's ElfQuest and, in a slightly different way, Ringworld. Its not new, but BRP-based games have tended to be a combination of characteristic-derived bonuses and/or a static starting value.
Quote from: Brander;731294I'm surprisingly unfamiliar with those, thanks for pointing them out. Gone are the days when I owned just about everything.
If you like your d% gaming light d00Lite is really worth checking out.
Quote from: Brander;731294No argument. Though Unknown Armies did try to idiot proof the concept by stating that the percentages were only for when under stress or the like.
At times, players insist on rolling a trivial task. I sometimes allow them their fun, heavily modifying the roll to increase the chance of success. But yeah, CoC 6E also states that rolls should only be called for when dramatically appropriate.
Quote from: NathanIW;731302(...) The thing about a bell curve is that you still, in the end, have a percentage chance for success equal to the number of successful die results added up. So if you're rolling 3d6 and need a 11 or better, it's statistically identical to roll under 50% on a d100.
True, though results will gravitate more strongly towards the average.
Quote from: Brander;731336All I was trying to note was that in my experience d% systems were poorly implemented by nearly all the GMs I played with, which has/had negatively impacted my perception of them. It's an explanation, not a counterpoint of any kind.
Do you think this happens more often with d% than other systems? That would be odd.
Quote from: Omega;731342Or a great example of BGG at at its best.
"I hate percentile dice because the d10 is biased to roll 5.5."
I wish I were making that line up. Really.
:banghead:
Quote from: Warthur;731356Also, it occurs to me that BRP-type percentile systems actually DO have a bell curve when it comes to increasing skills, which I would argue is actually where you want the bell curve to be. At low skill levels it is unlikely you will succeed (in order to get an experience check), but likely you will pass the experience check. At high skill levels you will probably get the check but probably won't increase your skill from it. At middling levels you have medium odds of both earning and passing the check. If you plot y = x(100-x), which is the probability that you will succeed a roll at skill x and then pass an experience check on it, you get - guess what! - a nice bell curve.
You get a parabola, which might be good enough. However, this all assumes that opportunity to increase a skill = one skill check and one advancement check. Not so: if you take the original RQ as the example, you get as many skill checks as occur in an adventure, but once you have a success, you only get one advancement check. Also, you can increase a skill through training. This has guaranteed results, with strictly diminishing returns in terms of time and monetary cost.
Point is that when it comes to advancement over time (the ultimate resource), BRP and similar games are pretty tricky to analyze. Harnmaster gives an advancement check after any adventure in which you score a critical success OR failure (IIRC), which comes out to a flat 20% per try, and then uses roll-over for advancement. It also has you handle training by awarding advancement checks. Newer RQs versions get rid of the need to succeed on a skill and just award advancement checks like XP, then have a slightly different mechanic for training. And so on.
I would say that as commonly implemented, BRP-like games are a
little wonky in terms of handling
difficulties. Fudge derivatives are remarkably clear: the dice roll tells you how well you performed, and the task difficulty is objective performance level needed to succeed. In d%, difficulty is a modifier to the roll, which then gives you a very low granularity
relative performance measure--usually crit, special, success, failure, fumble.
Quote from: MatteoN;731349Which is also the meaning of "game X's system is not intuitive".
Eh, not necessarily. More often than otherwise, I translate that to meaning "OMFG, you mean I have to
learn the rules to play this game??? What the hell!"
Quote from: 3rik;731364True, though results will gravitate more strongly towards the average.
At what point along the proficiency scale does gravitating towards average become more desirable though. I mean, there's barely a statistical difference between high stats of 15-18 or low stats of 3-6 when using a 3d6 mechanic. We're talking a few percentage points difference. Is it supposed to be more dramatic when there's no meaningful difference between "Spiderman strength" and "Hulk strength", or more realistic?
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731353Bell curves might change the way a game feels when sitting back and theorizing about it, but when players are rolling the bones they're rarely thinking about diminishing returns at each end of the spectrum.
I'll agree that most players aren't thinking about anything but "don't fail, don't fail" or similar when rolling the bones.
"Sitting back and theorizing about it" though is the system designer's job in determining what systems to use to get a desired feel to a game.
Quote from: MatteoN;731346** IIRC, Hero accounts for this facet by having the lowest target number for a skilled character be 11- on 3d6.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731353It's not realistic IMO to have diminishing returns at the low end of the spectrum.
These are good points, but most games I know put a floor on general overall ability at about the 40-50% level in systems through some mechanism or another. To go way back, Traveller used 8+ modifier on a 2d6 roll for to hit, which is ~42% without modifiers. Hero is noted above and in Gurps it requires a significantly bad attribute to get below 8- on 3d6 outside of extreme difficulty.
Quote from: Brander;731372These are good points, but most games I know put a floor on general overall ability at about the 40-50% level in systems through some mechanism or another. To go way back, Traveller used 8+ modifier on a 2d6 roll for to hit, which is ~42% without modifiers. Hero is noted above and in Gurps it requires a significantly bad attribute to get below 8- on 3d6 outside of extreme difficulty.
True, in reality I suppose most 3d6 systems function more like a "half-bell", starting at say 40% then rising and dropping steeply before tapering off gradually at the high end.
Quote from: Warthur;731355I find diminishing returns at the end of the spectrum overrated. I also tend to think that a +whatever situational bonus should be equally beneficial whatever level of skill you are at.
I'm not sure I find it "realistic" or "versimilitudinous" that, for example, a world class sniper is equally impacted by a "cross-breeze" as a rank amateur. To one it's just part and parcel (and this a very minor issue) and to the other it would be quite a problem (and thus a big modifier). With a % system this would generally equate to different penalties to each, whereas in a bell curve the same penalty for a "cross-breeze" would have the effect of reducing the better shooter's skill less and the less-skilled shooter's skill more.
None of this is saying one or the other is better, just that they achieve things in different ways. In the above example, it's more of a GMs call for a d% but it's built in for a bell curve. I can see good cases for either being the desired feel for a system.
Quote from: 3rik;731364Do you think this happens more often with d% than other systems? That would be odd.
No, I now just think it happened to me more often. :-)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731373True, in reality I suppose most 3d6 systems function more like a "half-bell", starting at say 40% then rising and dropping steeply before tapering off gradually at the high end.
That's why my preferred bell curve is XdY + trait + modifier (where x > 1), since it creates a floor of "trait"+ Xd1, makes small modifiers matter a lot to lesser skill levels, matter sort of linearly to moderate skill levels and much less to great skill levels. And if you graph the results it looks a lot like a half bell (on anydice this would be the "at least" button).
The first example I know of this system is classic Traveller combat, though a 2d6 has more of a triangle curve than a bell.
And none of this is to be taken as a slam on d%, it's just a different way of doing things to get a desired feel. It would be exactly the same to pull the % out of the resulting graph and use a d% roll.
Quote from: Brander;731379That's why my preferred bell curve is XdY + trait + modifier (where x > 1), since it creates a floor of "trait"+ Xd1, makes small modifiers matter a lot to lesser skill levels, matter sort of linearly to moderate skill levels and much less to great skill levels. And if you graph the results it looks a lot like a half bell (on anydice this would be the "at least" button).
I'm still curious to know at which point along the proficiency scale a bell curve is most desirable, and how that translates to "feel of the game" at the table. BTW this is the part where bell-curve proponents usually start stuttering and veering into very abstract explanations in my experience, so I've never actually heard a coherent answer.
Seems to me the bell curve favours "jack-of-all-trades" type PCs, since there's little added benefit to raising your scores beyond a certain point.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731380I'm still curious to know at which point along the proficiency scale a bell curve is most desirable, and how that translates to "feel of the game" at the table. BTW this is the part where bell-curve proponents usually start stuttering and veering into very abstract explanations in my experience, so I've never actually heard a coherent answer.
I'm not quite sure I understand the question since the bell curve is the proficiency scale in my eyes.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731380Seems to me the bell curve favours "jack-of-all-trades" type PCs, since there's little added benefit to raising your scores beyond a certain point.
That depends on the build system of the game more than the randomizer in my experience. A lot of systems put a curve on costs even absent a curve in the randomizer. Unless the cost is the same for lower trait as higher traits, per increment, it has a curve of some sort. As was noted earlier in the thread, D&D puts a curve on ability scores (both for rolls and for point buy) despite using a d% system in 5% increments.
Quote from: Brander;731388I'm not quite sure I understand the question since the bell curve is the proficiency scale in my eyes.
What I meant was, at which points along the proficiency scale is a bell curve randomizer preferable to a linear randomizer (e.g. low skill, medium-low, medium, medium-high, high)? And how does that affect the "feel" of the game?
Quote from: Brander;731388As was noted earlier in the thread, D&D puts a curve on ability scores (both for rolls and for point buy) despite using a d% system in 5% increments.
Well D&D sort of erases the bell curve effect anyway by having a table of stat-driven modifiers that could just as easily be adapted to percentile-based scores without changing anything else. The 3d6 stat roll is just part of D&D's legacy.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731395What I meant was, at which points along the proficiency scale is a bell curve randomizer preferable to a linear randomizer (e.g. low skill, medium-low, medium, medium-high, high)? And how does that affect the "feel" of the game?
I don't know if you consider this coherent or not, but the only answers I have to these questions are below:
Quote from: Brander;731374I'm not sure I find it "realistic" or "versimilitudinous" that, for example, a world class sniper is equally impacted by a "cross-breeze" as a rank amateur. To one it's just part and parcel (and this a very minor issue) and to the other it would be quite a problem (and thus a big modifier). With a % system this would generally equate to different penalties to each, whereas in a bell curve the same penalty for a "cross-breeze" would have the effect of reducing the better shooter's skill less and the less-skilled shooter's skill more.
and
Quote from: Brander;731379...makes small modifiers matter a lot to lesser skill levels, matter sort of linearly to moderate skill levels and much less to great skill levels....
...which is why I am kind of confused about the questions. I'm avoiding saying one way or another is better, since one person's "realism" is another's "fantasy" in gaming. I have noted I have some preference for a bell curve, but in the end I'll trade a dozen bell curves for a good GM when I play.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731398Well D&D sort of erases the bell curve effect anyway by having a table of stat-driven modifiers that could just as easily be adapted to percentile-based scores without changing anything else. The 3d6 stat roll is just part of D&D's legacy.
Populations almost always fall into a bell curve when measured for some characteristic. The 3d6 was likely chosen to model this, what was then done with those numbers has changed over editions (and games). Even if it's converted, it remains that ,if the modifiers are clustered around the extremes, that the distribution of those with those modifiers represent a bell curve.
The main erasure of 3d6 I've seen over the years is no one ever actually used it unless they had a GM pointed at their head. I know the groups I played with 30+ years ago had a way greater percentage of 18s than the bell curve would suggest, and mysteriously, it was consistent from group to group :-)
I like roll under % systems for task resolution. It's simple and intuitive at it's core...you could not have a more straight forward indicator of challenge probability.
Quote from: Brander;731374I'm not sure I find it "realistic" or "versimilitudinous" that, for example, a world class sniper is equally impacted by a "cross-breeze" as a rank amateur. To one it's just part and parcel (and this a very minor issue) and to the other it would be quite a problem (and thus a big modifier). With a % system this would generally equate to different penalties to each, whereas in a bell curve the same penalty for a "cross-breeze" would have the effect of reducing the better shooter's skill less and the less-skilled shooter's skill more.
None of this is saying one or the other is better, just that they achieve things in different ways. In the above example, it's more of a GMs call for a d% but it's built in for a bell curve. I can see good cases for either being the desired feel for a system.
How interesting, it is so very similar to my take on systems. Especially how it matches my houserules and my acceptance of other previously overlooked rules.
In example, I run my d20 as "roll under in 5% gradients." I just didn't like in d% the ones place die offering little except point tax (having to plop a 9 there to cover your desired tens place value). Yet they are both flat distribution so any modifier tends to hold equal weight regardless of degree of professionalism.
When I run my D&D 2e I run two classes of modifiers, those for novices and those for professionals. That helps me remember how many rolls I would tell a professional to skip, as it would be assumed part of their training. This helps me apply to optional NWP, along with the whole Rogue archetype and Thief Skills.
However, when I look at IN SJG and its 2d6 +d6 Degree of Success die, I see how they countered diminishing returns from the 2d6 bell curve. They had a core rule that is easy to overlook its impact. Any roll for a target number whose final modified value exceeds the max dice potential has the extra points spill into the degree of success die. So if your stats and skill add up to 14, it is impossible to roll over that on 2d6, you cannot fail. Yet you roll anyway to get that d6 degree of success value (and check for crit dice combination that create interventions). But those extra two points over 12 spill into that degree of success, so you end up rolling 3-8 instead.
Distribution does matter in systems, and it is surprising how much they can be overlooked or cause frustration. I too have played in dice happy CoC games, and if the distinction of professional was made more perhaps things would have been better. Now that I look back I wonder what I can do with having a differing set of modifiers for those skills with way more EDU or passed check points inside...
Quote from: Brander;731410I don't know if you consider this coherent or not, but the only answers I have to these questions are below:
OK, so "penalty insurance" for highly skilled characters feels more realistic to you than giving them a significant advantage on unmodified tests. Does the inverse also feel more realistic (i.e. unskilled characters benefit less from bonuses than average characters)?
Quote from: Brander;731410Even if it's converted, it remains that ,if the modifiers are clustered around the extremes, that the distribution of those with those modifiers represent a bell curve.
Oh yes, a differently-shaped bell curve is retained in the D&D stat-bonus array, except it's not through the 3d6 roll but through the associated reference table, which could use any die mechanic to achieve exactly the same bell curve.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731447OK, so "penalty insurance" for highly skilled characters feels more realistic to you than giving them a significant advantage on unmodified tests. Does the inverse also feel more realistic (i.e. unskilled characters benefit less from bonuses than average characters)?
...
It's actually the opposite, unskilled characters benefit more from bonuses (which tend to push them to the middle in large amounts) and while they may be numerically small, the proportional impact of penalties is huge. e.g. going from a 5- to a 3- on 3d6 is going from 4.6% to 0.46%, a tenfold decrease in ability, and going from a 5- to 7- is going from 4.6% to 16.2%, or not quite a fourfold increase. On the high end, going from a 17- to a 15- is 95.37% to 99.54, which is only a 1/20th decrease in ability, and going from a 17- to 19- (assuming 18 always fails as it tend to do in 3d6 systems) has no impact whatsoever.
Whether these are features or bugs is up to you, but that's the result.
Quote from: Brander;731459It's actually the opposite, unskilled characters benefit more from bonuses (which tend to push them to the middle in large amounts)
I don't think that's true actually; the same premise applies to highly skilled characters at the upper "lip" of the bell. e.g. going from 5- to 6- is only a +5% improvement, whereas going from 11- to 12- is a +12% improvement.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731470I don't think that's true actually; the same premise applies to highly skilled characters at the upper "lip" of the bell. e.g. going from 5- to 6- is only a +5% improvement, whereas going from 11- to 12- is a +12% improvement.
You are referring to the absolute increment, Brander to the relative (to the unmodified chance of success) one: going from 11- to 12- gives you both a bigger absolute increment and a smaller relative increment than going from 5- to 6-. For example, going from 9- to 10- and from 10- to 11- gives you the same absolute increment (+12.5%), but the second advancement gives you a smaller relative increment because the starting chance of success is higher.
Quote from: MatteoN;731471You are referring to the absolute increment, Brander to the relative (to the unmodified chance of success) one: going from 11- to 12- gives you both a bigger absolute increment and a smaller relative increment than going from 5- to 6-. For example, going from 9- to 10- and from 10- to 11- gives you the same absolute increment (+12.5%), but the second advancement gives you a smaller relative increment because the starting chance of success is higher.
Yeah but players wouldn't be as likely to "feel" the effect of miniscule relative modifiers at the gaming table when rolling the bones, whereas they
might feel the effect of a +7% difference in absolute modifiers. Personally I'm dubious about the players feeling any of this at the gaming table, but for arguments sake I'm assuming they do.
I mean, if we're talking about relative increase/decrease, a skilled character's chance of failure on a bell curve actually suffers larger relative penalties than an average character's, even though the % is smaller.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731472Yeah but players wouldn't be as likely to "feel" the effect of miniscule relative increments at the gaming table when rolling the bones, whereas they might feel the effect of a +7% difference in absolute increments. Personally I'm dubious about the players feeling any of this at the gaming table, but for arguments sake I'm assuming they do.
I agree that the subject is likely to thrill (wannabe) game designers more than players. :D
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731470I don't think that's true actually; the same premise applies to highly skilled characters at the upper "lip" of the bell. e.g. going from 5- to 6- is only a +5% improvement, whereas going from 11- to 12- is a +12% improvement.
It's true when you look at the relative change a modifier has to the users skill level. Your looking at the numeric percentage points difference between each skill level without any relation to how it impacts the users base skill level.
This is a csv of what you seem to be looking at (as far as I can tell):
- #,%
- 3,0.46
- 4,1.39
- 5,2.78
- 6,4.63
- 7,6.94
- 8,9.72
- 9,11.57
- 10,12.5
- 11,12.5
- 12,11.57
- 13,9.72
- 14,6.94
- 15,4.63
- 16,2.78
- 17,1.39
- 18,0.46
I'm looking at it more like this and caring about the relative rather than absolute change from one value to another:
- #,%
- 3,0.46
- 4,1.85
- 5,4.63
- 6,9.26
- 7,16.20
- 8,25.93
- 9,37.50
- 10,50.00
- 11,62.50
- 12,74.07
- 13,83.80
- 14,90.74
- 15,95.37
- 16,98.15
- 17,99.54
- 18,100.00
Going from 11- to 12- isn't an 11.57% change from the original skill, even though the actual percentage goes up by that amount, it's an 18.5% change from the original skill ((74.07-62.5)/62.5 = 18.5%). That change is what is important to me in this case, it might not be to you.
Quote from: Brander;731474Going from 11- to 12- isn't an 11.57% change from the original skill, even though the actual percentage goes up by that amount, it's an 18.5% change from the original skill ((74.07-62.5)/62.5 = 18.5%). That change is what is important to me in this case, it might not be to you.
If you apply the same logic to your original "sniper in a breeze" example, then dropping from 17- to 16- quadruples the sniper's chance of failure, whereas dropping from 12- to 11- isn't even doubling the average character's chance of failure.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731472Yeah but players wouldn't be as likely to "feel" the effect of miniscule relative modifiers at the gaming table when rolling the bones, whereas they might feel the effect of a +7% difference in absolute modifiers. Personally I'm dubious about the players feeling any of this at the gaming table, but for arguments sake I'm assuming they do.
While I notice such things more or less immediately (mostly due to caring about it) it's likely more of an "over time" feel than an individual roll feel, and, yes, it's a system designer thing more often than a player thing.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731472I mean, if we're talking about relative increase/decrease, a skilled character's chance of failure on a bell curve actually suffers larger relative penalties than an average character's, even though the % is smaller.
True, but when the desired feel is focused on chance of success that matters much less. Also other system specifics can matter as well. If failure brings great consequence more often than success, it might be more important to care about the relative chance of failure instead of success. I'm not saying one or the other of any system is better here, at most I'm saying it can be important that the dice system backs up the desired feel of the game.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731475If you apply the same logic to your original "sniper in a breeze" example, then dropping from 17- to 16- quadruples the sniper's chance of failure, whereas dropping from 12- to 11- isn't even doubling the average character's chance of failure.
It's the change in success I'm caring about in this case. The miniscule chance of failure going up massively bothers me less as long as it remains small. None of this, except the actual numbers, is objective as such. It's about what a system designer or player who will notice will care about. Some people like the feel of a bell curve, some people like the feel of a dice pool, and some people like the feel of a d% system. Most probably don't care at all :)
Quote from: Brander;731476True, but when the desired feel is focused on chance of success that matters much less.
The way you described the "sniper in a breeze" example, it sounded like you were interested in mitigating risk-of-failure margins for skilled PCs compared to average ones as a consequence of negative modifiers.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731478The way you described the "sniper in a breeze" example, it sounded like you were interested in mitigating risk-of-failure margins for skilled PCs compared to average ones as a consequence of negative modifiers.
It was just an example to illustrate a point. Though it kind of turned into a dissertation. I still think it's a good example, especially since it highlighted how it can be turned over if you focus on failure over success. And in my experience it does indeed produce a tangible feel in games like Gurps and Hero for 3d6, Traveller and BESM for 2d6.
I have a preference for multiple dice bell curves. Despite that, and despite knowing it's statistical quirks, Savage Worlds has somehow become my favorite system, over Gurps even (a previous favorite and a game I still have tremendous respect for). Turns out the simplicity and speed of rolling one or two mostly flat randomizers per character (among many other things) trumps a lot of what I like about multiple dice bell curves. The wild die produces a triangular-ish shaped "curve" for success with wild cards, but each die is independent since you (almost?) never apply both and that's before we get into the statistical wonkiness of the dice exploding, which is clearly trumped for me by the sheer fun in rolling again. And from what I understand they chose what was fun to them over that (quite minor in actual play) statistical wonkiness to get the overall feel they wanted.
Quote from: Brander;731480It was just an example to illustrate a point. Though it kind of turned into a dissertation. I still think it's a good example, especially since it highlighted how it can be turned over if you focus on failure over success.
If you're analyzing modifiers as a proportion of the base value instead of as absolute values, you're already well off the path of tangibles and into theory-land anyway. At that point, you'd be remiss IMO to overlook the effect of bell curves on risk-of-failure at different proficiency levels. But, we're talking about subjective realism here, so of course you're entitled to define the parameters of your own personal analysis.
Heck, to make modifiers tangible just play EotE and WFRP3e so players can actually feel the modifiers in their fingers. :) From a purely mathematical POV I don't think players are likely to "feel" anything less than a 5% shift when rolling the bones, and probably won't feel the difference between a 5% and a 10% shift either. What matters is the imagery that the GM attaches to the modifier, and the character's in-world options to negate or enhance them.
I like roll-over dice (ala Rolemaster), but some of my favorite all-time games (Rifts, Palladium Fantasy) and my current system (RQ6) use roll-under. I really don't have an issue with them, though I've converted Rifts to roll-over before, to generally good effect.
Quote from: Zachary The First;731495I like roll-over dice (ala Rolemaster), but some of my favorite all-time games (Rifts, Palladium Fantasy) and my current system (RQ6) use roll-under. I really don't have an issue with them, though I've converted Rifts to roll-over before, to generally good effect.
IIRC the only d% roll-over system I'm familiar with is the Streamline system, used in FJ Gaming's
Gunslingers & Gamblers: Streamline Edition and
Privateers and Pirates. This system is pretty neat and I don't really have a preference one way or the other.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731481Heck, to make modifiers tangible just play EotE and WFRP3e so players can actually feel the modifiers in their fingers. :)
Loathing is too bland a word to describe my feelings of EotE's dice and dice system. I'm in a mostly weekly game, so no one needs to tell me to try them, I'm stuck in their hell now with an otherwise great GM and group, but that is literally another thread.
I only know what the WFRP3e dice look like, the game struck me as too many bits for too little gain. I do however have a great deal of nostalgia for WHFRP1e which is d%.
Quote from: Brander;731507Loathing is too bland a word to describe my feelings of EotE's dice and dice system. I'm in a mostly weekly game, so no one needs to tell me to try them, I'm stuck in their hell now with an otherwise great GM and group, but that is literally another thread.
LOL I was being facetious there. Actually I wouldn't recommend those game to you anyway since it sounds like you prefer for modifiers to disappear at certain proficiency levels.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731511LOL I was being facetious there. Actually I wouldn't recommend those game to you anyway since it sounds like you prefer for modifiers to disappear at certain proficiency levels.
Sorry I missed it at first, kneejerks (me) and all :-)
Two of my favourite games are Cyberspace and Call of Cthulhu; one is roll-over and the other roll-under. What shall I say...I like them both!
Personally, I do think that roll-under is a (little) bit more intuitive for players to understand than roll-over...
I always prefer roll under %, actually. I use it in 90% of the games I run and design.
I don't mind roll under, or even linear progression of success, but for some reason I'm just not fond of the d% dice. Its probably just my own personal neuroses. It won't stop me from playing a game, but for some reason I just don't like them.
Quote from: Shauncat;731182have a number of issues that would make me avoid them, personally, if designing a system from the ground up:
1) Pass/Fail - With no gradient in between, pass/fail mechanics tend to produce fairly boring results.
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether we're tossing d100 or d6, low or high! The absurd notion that there is some relevance is equally musterable against whatever arbitrary method of tossing dice anyone cares to single out for disdain.
Also, anything "other than" a binary choice is just a set of binary choices. Different people choose to define different dichotomous domains. YMMV as to convenience of looking up a set table of finite possibilities, or using progressively branching (and perhaps improvised) considerations.
Quote2) Variable Target Numbers - In some systems, you end up with situations where a professional has a 50% chance of doing his 40+ hour a week trade correctly. It could be said that he's under pressure, but pressure could be part of his daily routine! A fireman doesn't have a 50% chance of missing a fire with a torrent of water just because fire is scary.
Again, this has sweet fuck all relevance to ANY way of tossing dice. This is all a matter of the context in which a roll is called for in the first place.
QuoteThe obvious solution to #1 and #2 is only roll if the stakes are interesting, right? Well sure, if it works for your group. Often however, the percentile roll-under games are used at simulationist tables.
Every simulationist table that has ever been, has excluded consideration of an astronomically vast domain of stuff because (A) it wasn't sufficiently interesting; and (B) otherwise, all the time in the universe wouldn't be enough to complete Move One.
I'm sorry, but similar physical realities dictate that writers must assume some common sense in readers. Once upon a time, simulation gamers were on average notably intelligent, too.
I personally prefer a method that clearly states n/d chance of event, since the odds are what interest me and I always end up converting something like 14+ on d20 into that mentally anyway!
I've got a friend who is demented enough to need occasionally to ask whether 30% means a roll over 30, but he does the same thing the other way with AD&D saving rolls, and most gamers don't have that problem.
Quote from: Warthur;731211Either way, with COC I think they wanted to reflect the distinction where in the modern era most of your professional skills are a matter of education and training, and there are a lot of pursuits you can't simply expect to pick up and bluff you way through without any prior training, hence your skills coming from your Education and Intelligence pools rather than being directly derived from stats.
Nah, what they mainly wanted was a more streamlined rules set than RuneQuest and Stormbringer (which derived skill bonuses and penalties from tailored stat-based formulas).
It's the same motive as dumping hit locations, for instance; it's not like there's some special 'modern' physics that makes a head shot as deadly as one to the toe.
Quote from: LordVreeg;731561I always prefer roll under %, actually. I use it in 90% of the games I run and design.
I see what you did there. :D
Quote from: Emperor Norton;731572I don't mind roll under, or even linear progression of success, but for some reason I'm just not fond of the d% dice. Its probably just my own personal neuroses. It won't stop me from playing a game, but for some reason I just don't like them.
Some players have a hard time reading them. I used to have a bit of a mental hurdle reading percentile dice and then it clicked and I discovered I'd been reading them right all along. It just felt off for some reason.
Quote from: One Horse Town;731632I see what you did there. :D
well...i thought there was a chance I'd get away with it....
Interesting thread.
The only issue I can think of regarding d% is that way back when, they didn't make dedicated percentile dice (they had just started making d10s -most gamers were using d20s where half the numerals were one color and half were another: "Yellow is high; red is low"). So rolling for percentages on a regular basis could be grating: either two dice were rolled and the person rolling had to call which was high and which die was the 10s, or a single die was thrown twice. If you were trying to play at school or anywhere else and there wasn't much space or time to spare, this could be a headache. As a result, we often rounded to the nearest 5% and rolled a d20.
But like I said, that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
The only problem I have with D%, and it's the same issue I have with a D20, is that it has a large range of possible results, with a flat probability line. This can cause the need to chase a large modifier or low target number through munchkining by some players in some systems. I personally prefer a probability curve achieved by 2DX, where a middle score is the average.
I do appreciate the elegance of your percentage for a certain roll under or roll over result directly maps to the percentage of the dice.
Quote from: Adric;731696The only problem I have with D%, and it's the same issue I have with a D20, is that it has a large range of possible results, with a flat probability line. This can cause the need to chase a large modifier or low target number through munchkining by some players in some systems. I personally prefer a probability curve achieved by 2DX, where a middle score is the average.
This is something that really puzzles me. Assuming flat rate modifiers as opposed to proportional ones (e.g. RQ6, CoC7) then the impact of the modifier is the same regardless of your skill except at the margins. E.g. If your modifier brings the success chance down to 5% (or up to 95%) then further modifiers are (largely) irrelevant. Thus "optimising" (aka being a munchkin by stacking as many modifiers as you can get away with) is simple and transparent.
Using a bell curve system where the impact of the modifier has more effect the closer to average you are encourages munchkins to optimise the effect of each modifier. Because the impact of modifiers are variable there is more for a munchkin to play with.
The other thing that is important here is the communication of risk. One of the things statisticians are told never to do is to present effects as ratios. For example, if eating sausages once a day for a year "trebles your chance of bowel cancer" that sounds terrifying. On the other hand if it increases the incidence bowel cancer from 0.02% to 0.06% suddenly it sounds insignificant. (Those stats are made up.)
So when someone says that a modifier "quadruples your chance of failure" if your skill is 100% but only slightly increases it if your skill is 40% that sounds completely wrong. However in BRP if your skill is 100% you have a 5% chance of failure (if you roll). A -20% modifier gives you a 20% chance of failure. If your skill is 40% then your chance of failure increases from 60% to 80% ("a 33% increase..."). Which is all to say that proportional increases are a very bad way of explaining these things.
Personally, in an rpg, I prefer "linear" skill ratings whether d100 or d20 with linear modifiers. I also prefer modifiers to be big and rare and (on the whole) non-stacking. When rolling for a skill during a game I would rather have more chance of an extreme result because these are extreme moments.
One reason I don't like proportional modifiers (e.g. skill/2 or skill/10) is that they make some things feel impossible when they shouldn't be. E.g. bloke tightrope walks between hot air balloons. That sounds like something that's as hard as hard can be without being impossible. If you rate that at skill/10 then you need 1000% in tight-rope walking. If on the other hand you rate it at minus 80% you *only* need a skill of 180%. This helps keep skill inflation under check. Of course this means that in a game session almost anyone trying to tightrope walk has in theory a 5% chance of success. Great, that's the kind of high stakes unexpected victory which can overthrow any kind of railroad.
So give me linear scales, big linear modifiers and let the dice provide the drama. Surely that's the unpredictability which makes rpgs so much fun.
Quote from: deleriad;731699This is something that really puzzles me. Assuming flat rate modifiers as opposed to proportional ones (e.g. RQ6, CoC7) then the impact of the modifier is the same regardless of your skill except at the margins. E.g. If your modifier brings the success chance down to 5% (or up to 95%) then further modifiers are (largely) irrelevant. Thus "optimising" (aka being a munchkin by stacking as many modifiers as you can get away with) is simple and transparent.
Using a bell curve system where the impact of the modifier has more effect the closer to average you are encourages munchkins to optimise the effect of each modifier. Because the impact of modifiers are variable there is more for a munchkin to play with.
The other thing that is important here is the communication of risk. One of the things statisticians are told never to do is to present effects as ratios. For example, if eating sausages once a day for a year "trebles your chance of bowel cancer" that sounds terrifying. On the other hand if it increases the incidence bowel cancer from 0.02% to 0.06% suddenly it sounds insignificant. (Those stats are made up.)
So when someone says that a modifier "quadruples your chance of failure" if your skill is 100% but only slightly increases it if your skill is 40% that sounds completely wrong. However in BRP if your skill is 100% you have a 5% chance of failure (if you roll). A -20% modifier gives you a 20% chance of failure. If your skill is 40% then your chance of failure increases from 60% to 80% ("a 33% increase..."). Which is all to say that proportional increases are a very bad way of explaining these things.
Personally, in an rpg, I prefer "linear" skill ratings whether d100 or d20 with linear modifiers. I also prefer modifiers to be big and rare and (on the whole) non-stacking. When rolling for a skill during a game I would rather have more chance of an extreme result because these are extreme moments.
One reason I don't like proportional modifiers (e.g. skill/2 or skill/10) is that they make some things feel impossible when they shouldn't be. E.g. bloke tightrope walks between hot air balloons. That sounds like something that's as hard as hard can be without being impossible. If you rate that at skill/10 then you need 1000% in tight-rope walking. If on the other hand you rate it at minus 80% you *only* need a skill of 180%. This helps keep skill inflation under check. Of course this means that in a game session almost anyone trying to tightrope walk has in theory a 5% chance of success. Great, that's the kind of high stakes unexpected victory which can overthrow any kind of railroad.
So give me linear scales, big linear modifiers and let the dice provide the drama. Surely that's the unpredictability which makes rpgs so much fun.
I as well, and then it also allows for longer duration games with more granular changes, so the PCS feel improvement, but without becoming impossibly powerful in a year of game time.
Quote from: deleriad;731699This is something that really puzzles me. Assuming flat rate modifiers as opposed to proportional ones (e.g. RQ6, CoC7) then the impact of the modifier is the same regardless of your skill except at the margins. E.g. If your modifier brings the success chance down to 5% (or up to 95%) then further modifiers are (largely) irrelevant. Thus "optimising" (aka being a munchkin by stacking as many modifiers as you can get away with) is simple and transparent.
Using a bell curve system where the impact of the modifier has more effect the closer to average you are encourages munchkins to optimise the effect of each modifier. Because the impact of modifiers are variable there is more for a munchkin to play with.
The other thing that is important here is the communication of risk. One of the things statisticians are told never to do is to present effects as ratios. For example, if eating sausages once a day for a year "trebles your chance of bowel cancer" that sounds terrifying. On the other hand if it increases the incidence bowel cancer from 0.02% to 0.06% suddenly it sounds insignificant. (Those stats are made up.)
So when someone says that a modifier "quadruples your chance of failure" if your skill is 100% but only slightly increases it if your skill is 40% that sounds completely wrong. However in BRP if your skill is 100% you have a 5% chance of failure (if you roll). A -20% modifier gives you a 20% chance of failure. If your skill is 40% then your chance of failure increases from 60% to 80% ("a 33% increase..."). Which is all to say that proportional increases are a very bad way of explaining these things.
Personally, in an rpg, I prefer "linear" skill ratings whether d100 or d20 with linear modifiers. I also prefer modifiers to be big and rare and (on the whole) non-stacking. When rolling for a skill during a game I would rather have more chance of an extreme result because these are extreme moments.
One reason I don't like proportional modifiers (e.g. skill/2 or skill/10) is that they make some things feel impossible when they shouldn't be. E.g. bloke tightrope walks between hot air balloons. That sounds like something that's as hard as hard can be without being impossible. If you rate that at skill/10 then you need 1000% in tight-rope walking. If on the other hand you rate it at minus 80% you *only* need a skill of 180%. This helps keep skill inflation under check. Of course this means that in a game session almost anyone trying to tightrope walk has in theory a 5% chance of success. Great, that's the kind of high stakes unexpected victory which can overthrow any kind of railroad.
So give me linear scales, big linear modifiers and let the dice provide the drama. Surely that's the unpredictability which makes rpgs so much fun.
I'm just not convinced that increasing chances of success by such small increments is necessary. On a d20, each number has a flat 5% chance of occurring. That means that the smallest amount you can improve boosts your chance by 5%.
For D%, the smallest amount you can improve is 1%. If skills regularly increase by more than 1% in a given system, why track it at such fine detail? Just round it off to the nearest 5% and use D20 or the nearest 10% and use D10.
Another problem with a pass/fail system that uses d% is that 9 times out of 10, the second die won't matter. If the target is say, 55%, the 10's die needs to be a 5 for there to be any tension on the 1's die. If the target number is a flat multiple of 10, and there are no modifiers, the second die never matters at all.
Quote from: Adric;731714Another problem with a pass/fail system that uses d% is that 9 times out of 10, the second die won't matter. If the target is say, 55%, the 10's die needs to be a 5 for there to be any tension on the 1's die. If the target number is a flat multiple of 10, and there are no modifiers, the second die never matters at all.
This sounds like a problem with not understanding how statistics work vs. an actual issue with uniform probability distribution. A 47% chance to do something in BRP means you literally have a 47% chance of succeeding when you roll d100. I don't think you're wrong by saying lack of "tension" with the ones-die is problematic, but it just shows that, fundamentally, people really don't understand numbers that well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731380I'm still curious to know at which point along the proficiency scale a bell curve is most desirable, and how that translates to "feel of the game" at the table.
What a bell curve does is create a consistency in outcome while still allowing for a wide range of
potential outcomes. This results in a reduced "swinginess" in common outcomes, but doesn't create a "claustrophobic" environment where characters are frequently either guaranteed success or failure.
One way to think of this is stop thinking of a character's "skill" as being a specific number to which you add a die roll. Instead, think of the character's skill as being the range of potential outcomes they can experience.
Say that you had a character with skill 1d6+20: Their range of skill produces results from 21-26. That means for any difficulty rated 21 or lower, they automatically succeed. And for any difficulty rated 27 or higher, they're guaranteed to fail.
Now, take a character with skill 1d20+13: Their range of skill produces results from 14-33. Their performance is still centered on the same range as the 1d6+20 mechanic, but you can see that the range of outcomes is much larger and the results are going to be a lot more "swingy" (they're going to fail on tasks that the more reliable die roll mechanic would allow them to automatically succeed at and they're going to succeed at tasks that the more reliable die roll mechanic would make impossible for them).
Now, take a character with skill 3d6+13: Their range of skill produces results from 16-31. This is still centered on the same range, but 67% of their results are going to fall into the 21-26 range produced by the 1d6+20 mechanic (whereas only 30% of the 1d20+13 results did).
You can very clearly see that the bell curve is delivering consistency akin to a smaller die range, but with nearly the full range of potential outcomes you see on the large die.
The other thing this approach helps to make clear is that modifiers have a consistent effect on the range of potential outcomes: If you're performing under favorable circumstances that grant a +2 bonus to your check, the ranges shift to 23-28, 16-35, and 18-33.
(And I would argue that focusing on one particular difficulty within that range and analyzing what happens to it under a certain modifier is deceptive unless you approach it with a proper mindset. Yes, it's true: A task that's sitting right in the middle of my "core range" is going to be more affected by favorable circumstances than tasks that are huge longshots. But when we put it like that, it makes sense: That core range represents the cusp between what I can routinely achieve and what I'm incredibly unlikely to achieve. It's going to be tasks sitting on that cusp (and not radically out of my normal skill level) that are going to be most affected by circumstance.)
Quote from: 3rik;731257So it's basically lowest roll wins, with success levels added. Not my preference but I guess it works, though I think it may fail to take into account the difference in skill level at certain values. I prefer blackjack or margin of success because it automatically benefits the player with the higher skill level.
Low rolls win, with success levels 'overriding' that? Not sure how to best describe it.
The benefit under my system for the higher skilled person is an increased chance to 'override' the lower skilled person.
A person with a 180 skill would have override values of 90<, and <18.
Rolling against someone with 40 skill who has override values of 20< and 4<.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731261Highest roll that's still below the target number wins (e.g. RQ6).
That looks mechanically sound but ughhhh at low roll good but high roll also kinda good.....:)
Quote from: Snowman0147;731293Thus the well known and fable truth is told. No really there is no cure for stupid.
This. Why would anyone do that? I actually saw a gm make people roll climb percent in COC once for stairs. Duh!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Justin Alexander;731798You can very clearly see that the bell curve is delivering consistency akin to a smaller die range, but with nearly the full range of potential outcomes you see on the large die.
So if I'm following your comparative hypotheticals correctly, it sounds like you prefer a wide range of possible outcomes, but with the results clustered more towards the center? How does this improve the "feel" of a game in your opinion?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;731798(And I would argue that focusing on one particular difficulty within that range and analyzing what happens to it under a certain modifier is deceptive unless you approach it with a proper mindset. Yes, it's true: A task that's sitting right in the middle of my "core range" is going to be more affected by favorable circumstances than tasks that are huge longshots. But when we put it like that, it makes sense: That core range represents the cusp between what I can routinely achieve and what I'm incredibly unlikely to achieve. It's going to be tasks sitting on that cusp (and not radically out of my normal skill level) that are going to be most affected by circumstance.)
That's certainly one way of viewing the world and how physics works. At the gaming table I think it would be hard to convince many players that their +5% modifier for using a tripod is actually
better than the +12% modifier gained by their average-skilled colleague, because it represents a higher percentage of their base value. Or that a highly skilled sniper shouldn't bother with a tripod because it only gives him a 1% boost anyway.
Quote from: Bill;731828That looks mechanically sound but ughhhh at low roll good but high roll also kinda good.....:)
"Blackjack" for % opposed tests is a little counterintuitive, and you sometimes have to re-roll contests when both sides fail. But it gets the job done and removes any need for addition/subtraction, so I can see why some designers use it. Keep in mind, RQ6 uses the dreaded "fractional difficulty modifiers", so eliminating additional math from opposed tests was probably a good idea.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731831"Blackjack" for % opposed tests is a little counterintuitive, and you sometimes have to re-roll contests when both sides fail. But it gets the job done and removes any need for addition/subtraction, so I can see why some designers use it. Keep in mind, RQ6 uses the dreaded "fractional difficulty modifiers", so eliminating additional math from opposed tests was probably a good idea.
I have not played RQ6.
Is 'fractional difficulty mods' the same as what I do as a house rule for Elric and COC: Checking if you made the roll by 1/2 or 1/10th?
The way I do that you don't need any math, just note on the charcater sheet skill 80-40-8 for half and tenth.
Regardless can't you just put it on the character sheet?
Quote from: Bill;731832Is 'fractional difficulty mods' the same as what I do as a house rule for Elric and COC: Checking if you made the roll by 1/2 or 1/10th?
For example, if you're rolling a challenging task it's either 75%, 50% or 10% of your base skill IIRC. I might have the exact percentages wrong, just going from memory.
Generally speaking, I find that people that advocate d% roll under do it that way by way of 'tradition'. It's a pretty well-established system, but personally, doesn't do much for me.
Personally, I think making everything a static DC of 100 and adding your skill rank works just fine.
Example: Your skill is 40. On d% roll under, you succeed with a roll of 1-40 (assuming you must roll your skill or lower). If you take d% and add your modifier against a DC of 100 you succeed on a roll of 60 or better.
Ultimately, the 'roll under' is fine, unless/until you care about degree of success. If your attribute is a 62 and your roll is a 39, a lot of people have trouble quickly determinig the difference (23). On a roll over system you roll a 61 (61+62=123). Subtracting 100 is really easy so your degrees of success are easier to calcuate (dropping the 100s place doesn't even require actual subtraction).
Since most people are better at adding than subtracting double-digit numbers, the system works really well. It also makes it very easy to see 'how good someone is at something' since +40% is the same as 40% in a roll under system - you can tell how skilled someone is just as intuitively, but can resolve results just a little faster.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;731838Ultimately, the 'roll under' is fine, unless/until you care about degree of success. If your attribute is a 62 and your roll is a 39, a lot of people have trouble quickly determinig the difference (23). On a roll over system you roll a 61 (61+62=123). Subtracting 100 is really easy so your degrees of success are easier to calcuate (dropping the 100s place doesn't even require actual subtraction).
Agreed, Degrees of Success can be annoying in increments of 10 or less. Roll-under % works better with larger DoS increments of 20 or 30, which you can just eyeball for the most part.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731833For example, if you're rolling a challenging task it's either 75%, 50% or 10% of your base skill IIRC. I might have the exact percentages wrong, just going from memory.
That's the system I came up with from playing Elric and COC. I never felt the need to have a break point between 50 and 100 though. So no 75 percent.
I think Elric and COC used to use 20 percent, natural 5, natural 1-2 as I recall.
I tweaked it to 50percent, 10percent, 1-2natural.
Quote from: Bill;731852That's the system I came up with from playing Elric and COC. I never felt the need to have a break point between 50 and 100 though. So no 75 percent.
I think Elric and COC used to use 20 percent, natural 5, natural 1-2 as I recall.
I tweaked it to 50percent, 10percent, 1-2natural.
Yeah it's really just the 75% calculation that can require some brainpower, but jumping straight to 50% might be too big a leap. I think straight-up -10% stacking penalties are good enough for me, although the occasional arithmetic doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game (as long as the GM doesn't make every test a skill x 75% challenge. :))
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731843Agreed, Degrees of Success can be annoying in increments of 10 or less. Roll-under % works better with larger DoS increments of 20 or 30, which you can just eyeball for the most part.
This just gets back to the schizoid nature of generating performance outputs in the BRP family. I don't think "degree of success" was in the original system in the sense of succeeding or failing by a linear amount. (The only think like that IIRC was the Defense skill in RQ I/II. But it's a really marginal case.) All that mattered was whether you got a crit, special/impale, regular success, or fumble. The linear degree of success was tacked on later, mainly as a tie-breaker, but I don't think it's truly needed in most cases.
That said, I think what Justin wrote about bell curves basically boils down to what I said about Fudge resolution. I do think that to the extent you can measure it, performance tends to be distributed normally around the mean for an individual.
Improvement in raw ability over time/effort though I think is more likely to follow a curve of "diminishing returns"--steep on the left, shallower on the right.
This upshot if you agree with these premises is that skill + bell-curve randomizer vs. difficulty number (with linear situational mods) is a good resolution system, while advancement costs should be adjusted to make the performance curve have the right shape measured against time/effort.
I seem to remember doing some graphs that showed GURPS does just this, but I don't know if I ever posted them. Basically you'd plot chance of success against character points, instead of plotting it against skill level.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731830So if I'm following your comparative hypotheticals correctly, it sounds like you prefer a wide range of possible outcomes, but with the results clustered more towards the center? How does this improve the "feel" of a game in your opinion?
I don't actually care. I'm describing what the mechanic does.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731830That's certainly one way of viewing the world and how physics works. At the gaming table I think it would be hard to convince many players that their +5% modifier for using a tripod is actually better than the +12% modifier gained by their average-skilled colleague, because it represents a higher percentage of their base value. Or that a highly skilled sniper shouldn't bother with a tripod because it only gives him a 1% boost anyway.
First: I never said anything about "better".
Second: I have literally never played at a table where people are calculating the exact odds of success and then comparing those odds before and after applying various modifiers. It's a non-issue except for armchair wanking.
Even as a hypothetical exercise, it's pretty ridiculous: Say that you're applying an ability modifier, a skill modifier, an equipment modifier, and a situational modifier to a 3d6 die roll vs. DC 10. How does that conversation look, exactly? "Okay, if I apply the situational modifier first the percentage change in probability of success is
huge, but then the percentage change in probability of success from my skill is tinier than it would have been if the situation wasn't so favorable. But wait! If I apply my skill modifier first, then my skill is having a huge effect on the percentage change in the probability of success and the situational modifier is having only a tiny effect! Whoa!"
This sort of thinking just betrays a really fundamental incomprehension of the math.
Let me put it another way: You've got two coupons, both giving you $0.50 off on a $2 item. The first coupon reduces the price of the item by 25% (from $2 to $1.50). The second coupon reduces the price of the item by 33% (from $1.50 to $1). HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? WHY IS THE VALUE OF THE SECOND COUPON SO MUCH LARGER THAN THE VALUE OF THE FIRST COUPON?
Quote from: Arminius;731859This just gets back to the schizoid nature of generating performance outputs in the BRP family. I don't think "degree of success" was in the original system in the sense of succeeding or failing by a linear amount. (The only think like that IIRC was the Defense skill in RQ I/II. But it's a really marginal case.) All that mattered was whether you got a crit, special/impale, regular success, or fumble. The linear degree of success was tacked on later, mainly as a tie-breaker, but I don't think it's truly needed in most cases.
Maybe not in BRP, but in WFRP 1e degrees of failure and success were part of the standard skill test resolution mechanics. In WFRP 2e and the 40KRP games they switched DoS/DoF from increments of 20 to increments of 10, which can make a big difference in terms of mental processing time.
Quote from: Arminius;731859That said, I think what Justin wrote about bell curves basically boils down to what I said about Fudge resolution. I do think that to the extent you can measure it, performance tends to be distributed normally around the mean for an individual.
If you're not measuring degrees of success or failure, does it really matter where the majority of results are clustered? Aside from the possible desire to have modifiers and skill differentials shrink at the "lips of the bell" (as discussed earlier) the end result is just a binary outcome.
Roll Under %
I use the "roll under" method in ZWEIHÄNDER (http://grimandperilous.com), referencing 2d10 units and ones die for a result of 1 to 100.
Opposed Tests
In cases where Degrees For Success are needed with an opposed Skill Test, the system references the ones die for comparison with a small modifier for Primary Attributes.
Critical Success and Critical Failure
If you roll matching dice on percentiles and succeed your chances, you generate a Critical Success. If you roll matching dice on percentiles and fail your chances, you generate a Critical Failure.
Simple, easy and intuitive!
Quote from: Justin Alexander;731861I don't actually care. I'm describing what the mechanic does.
OK, I didn't actually need an explanation of what a bell curve does, but thanks anyway for the elaborate demonstration.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;731861Even as a hypothetical exercise, it's pretty ridiculous: Say that you're applying an ability modifier, a skill modifier, an equipment modifier, and a situational modifier to a 3d6 die roll vs. DC 10. How does that conversation look, exactly? "Okay, if I apply the situational modifier first the percentage change in probability of success is huge, but then the percentage change in probability of success from my skill is tinier than it would have been if the situation wasn't so favorable. But wait! If I apply my skill modifier first, then my skill is having a huge effect on the percentage change in the probability of success and the situational modifier is having only a tiny effect! Whoa!"?
I'm not the one arguing in favour of scaling modifiers to base skill (I much prefer flat modifiers). I was just pointing out that the alleged advantage you cited of having fewer results in the "lip" of the bell isn't necessarily an advantage to everyone, nor is it always more realistic. It seemed to me as if you were assuming the superior verisimilitude (or fun factor, or something) of this approach was a given.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731862Maybe not in BRP, but in WFRP 1e degrees of failure
interesting, thanks
QuoteIf you're not measuring degrees of success or failure, does it really matter where the majority of results are clustered? Aside from the possible desire to have modifiers and skill differentials shrink at the "lips of the bell" (as discussed earlier) the end result is just a binary outcome.
Let me put it this way. Skill differentials in terms of scores aren't a valid point of comparison. The thing that you should be comparing with respect to skills is the time/effort/resource/risk that goes into them. If you do this for GURPS or JAGS or Hero--because those are games where it's easy to measure--and count just the points that go into the skill (not underlying attribute), then for a given difficulty you'll find you get lots of bang for the buck on the first few points, then less and less.
But if you hold skill fixed and vary difficulty, you'll find that most of the action is around the middle. I.e. a small change in difficulty that won't matter for someone who is highly skilled or someone who's barely skilled will matter quite a lot for an average person.
Quote from: Arminius;731876Let me put it this way. Skill differentials in terms of scores aren't a valid point of comparison. The thing that you should be comparing with respect to skills is the time/effort/resource/risk that goes into them. If you do this for GURPS or JAGS or Hero--because those are games where it's easy to measure--and count just the points that go into the skill (not underlying attribute), then for a given difficulty you'll find you get lots of bang for the buck on the first few points, then less and less.
Right, earlier in the thread we talked about "diminishing returns" for XP spent at higher skill levels, and it was pointed out that systems with linear randomizers achieve this through escalating XP costs, instead of diminishing skill improvements.
I have not seen any disdain for roll under in actual play, except where it is mixed with roll high mechanics. In actual play, BRP is very well received.
D20 was smart to have "roll high" for everything. Back in AD&D, we had D20 roll high for combat and then D20 roll low for ability rolls and that was schitzo. Palladium is schitzo with the % skills and D20 for combat and then nothing for ability rolls.
Our old Traveller games were schitzo too when 2D6 roll high was used with skills and combat, but lots of GMs used roll under for ability scores and the inevitable complaint of why not roll under vs. high INT vs. my only +1 skill roll.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731878Right, earlier in the thread we talked about "diminishing returns" for XP spent at higher skill levels, and it was pointed out that systems with linear randomizers achieve this through escalating XP costs, instead of diminishing skill improvements.
Point is that skills with nonlinear randomizers can also achieve this--or close enough--if the costs are chosen carefully. And once you take this into account by looking at the "skill level" as the
cost rather than the numeric value, you can see that an increment in skill level is very different from a situational modifier.
I think this discussion was presaged on rec.games.frp.advocacy, which is where I originally posted my argument starting with this: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.frp.advocacy/ODHOm3sVqbo/NcEP97jfSqYJ
(Note that I corrected some details as the thread moved on.)
(https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.frp.advocacy/ODHOm3sVqbo/NcEP97jfSqYJ)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731865OK, I didn't actually need an explanation of what a bell curve does, but thanks anyway for the elaborate demonstration.
Then why the fuck did you ask?
Quote from: Adric;731714I'm just not convinced that increasing chances of success by such small increments is necessary. On a d20, each number has a flat 5% chance of occurring. That means that the smallest amount you can improve boosts your chance by 5%.
For D%, the smallest amount you can improve is 1%. If skills regularly increase by more than 1% in a given system, why track it at such fine detail? Just round it off to the nearest 5% and use D20 or the nearest 10% and use D10.
Another problem with a pass/fail system that uses d% is that 9 times out of 10, the second die won't matter. If the target is say, 55%, the 10's die needs to be a 5 for there to be any tension on the 1's die. If the target number is a flat multiple of 10, and there are no modifiers, the second die never matters at all.
Because percentile dice allow you to parse it out straight up without the needed calculations. And because sometimes rolling a d20 just to be rolling a d20 can feel a bit... lame.
As for the one roll making the second roll not needed. How is this even a valid argumant? Its not. You are usually rolling percentile dice both at once so if you need to read it you read it and of you dont you dont. Rarely are percentiles rolls in increments of 10. Also mostly invalidating that argument.
Some games do not follow a 5 progression. Palladium games comes to mind. Star Frontiers is another. Universe I believe as well.
Other games use a 5 progression deliberately so you CAN swap in a d20 if you dont have a pair of d10s handy.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;731863Critical Success and Critical Failure
If you roll matching dice on percentiles and succeed your chances, you generate a Critical Success. If you roll matching dice on percentiles and fail your chances, you generate a Critical Failure.
What are the odds on this? How often does it happen?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731909What are the odds on this? How often does it happen?
This is reasonably easy to work out:
0-10%: No chance of critical success, 10% chance of critical failure.
11-21%: 1% chance of critical success, 9% chance of critical failure.
22-32%: 2% chance of critical success, 8% chance of critical failure.
33-43%: 3% chance of critical success, 7% chance of critical failure.
44-54%: 4% chance of critical success, 6% chance of critical failure.
55-65%: 5% chance of critical success, 5% chance of critical failure.
66-76%: 6% chance of critical success, 4% chance of critical failure.
77-87%: 7% chance of critical success, 3% chance of critical failure.
88-98%: 8% chance of critical success, 2% chance of critical failure.
99%: 9% chance of critical success, 1% chance of critical failure.
100%: 10% chance of critical success, 0% chance of critical failure.
Note that it takes 22% in a skill before you raise the chance of critical success to 2% or more, whereas the chance of critical failure doesn't go below 2% until you're at 99%. Grim and perilous indeed!
Quote from: Justin Alexander;731892Then why the fuck did you ask?
I never asked for an explanation of bell curves. I asked why it's important for the results to be clustered towards average, and how that impacts the feel of a game.
Quote from: Arminius;731891Point is that skills with nonlinear randomizers can also achieve this--or close enough--if the costs are chosen carefully. And once you take this into account by looking at the "skill level" as the cost rather than the numeric value, you can see that an increment in skill level is very different from a situational modifier.
OK, so we're back to the topic of situational modifier effects being diminished for extreme values on a bell curve, as discussed earlier. From a gameplay perspective I can understand why some players (e.g. Brander) might prefer their ultra-skilled sniper PC not have to worry about stuff like wind, moving targets etc., although from a realism perspective there are many examples to the contrary (e.g. an average hockey player won't notice the difference between a wood and a composite stick, whereas an NHL players does).
For what it's worth, Dungeon World and its clones are one of the bell-curve-based systems in which the clustering of results around the mean is tangible IMO, because the curve is used primarily to regulate degrees of success and failure. However, I think DW would work just as well with a linear randomizer. The bell curve creates some "warping" of DoS/DoF bands at different proficiency levels, which doesn't necessarily map to reality IMO.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731917For what it's worth, Dungeon World and its clones are one of the bell-curve-based systems in which the clustering of results around the mean is tangible IMO,
It is very tangible as the most likely results are targeted at the "yes, but" range of 7+ (you need high stat/skill bonuses to get a 10+ full success).
So even when a character is moderately proficient the game system aims to hit the "hard choices" of "choose two out of three results" to ensure "drama".
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;731921So even when a character is moderately proficient the game system aims to hit the "hard choices" of "choose two out of three results" to ensure "drama".
Agreed, although most bell curve systems don't use degrees of success/failure AFAIK (with the exception of diepool systems where you count successes towards a target number, but that's a whole other discussion). You could still cluster the majority of rolls in the "yes, but" category in DW using a linear randomizer though.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731914OK, so we're back to the topic of situational modifier effects being diminished for extreme values on a bell curve, as discussed earlier. From a gameplay perspective I can understand why some players (e.g. Brander) might prefer their ultra-skilled sniper PC not have to worry about stuff like wind, moving targets etc., although from a realism perspective there are many examples to the contrary (e.g. an average hockey player won't notice the difference between a wood and a composite stick, whereas an NHL players does).
I don't know much about hockey. But you're mischaracterizing the effect. An ultra-skilled sniper won't have to worry about wind IF the shot is one that (absent wind) a moderately-skilled marksman has a fair chance of making. If it's a challenging shot for the ultra-skilled, then wind will make a big difference to him, but it won't matter much to the moderately-skilled who was facing an impossible shot anyway.
Quote from: Arminius;731931I don't know much about hockey. But you're mischaracterizing the effect. An ultra-skilled sniper won't have to worry about wind IF the shot is one that (absent wind) a moderately-skilled marksman has a fair chance of making. If it's a challenging shot for the ultra-skilled, then wind will make a big difference to him, but it won't matter much to the moderately-skilled who was facing an impossible shot anyway.
Is that more realistic than a flat modifier? I don't know much about sniping, but I can think of several examples where a normal person would be penalized more heavily by circumstantial factors while attempting a difficult task than a skilled person would be. (e.g. normal climber vs. skilled climber trying to scale a sheer cliff without a top-rope).
It seems there's no single "rosetta stone" die-system for reality simulation, because reality follows a wide variety of differently-shaped curves depending on the task, some of which are actually the opposite of a bell. Hence my preference for flat probabilities - at least they fall somewhere in the middle-ground of the various possible curves.
And to be clear, I don't have strong feelings about die-systems, as long as the GM understands them and employs them well. Usually they fade into the background once the game gets underway anyway. I do have strong feelings about people with strong feelings about die systems. :)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731927Agreed, although most bell curve systems don't use degrees of success/failure AFAIK (...). You could still cluster the majority of rolls in the "yes, but" category in DW using a linear randomizer though.
Yes, but you would have to make the "yes, but" range broader to achieve that.
For someone not versed in bell curves DW's "yes, but" range is "just three numbers", not "
those three numbers".
I wondered that this feature of DW didn't come up in the many DW threads we had on this forum. This feature that still gives away the Apocalypse World story game heritage of DW. ("Put the player between a rock and a hard place, push the player towards hard choices!")
It's really not an issue of flat modifiers as much as how results tend to cluster near the mid-range.
Here's a simple system for the purpose of a thought experiment.
Let's say we determine Jump by rolling 1d20+STR, and let's say we divide that result by 2 to determine distance jumped (ie, ever point on our scale works out to 6 inches). Assume a STR modifier of +4.
We can roll a 1 (total result of 5) which works out to 2.5 feet. We can roll a 20 (total result of 24) which works out to 12 feet.
Jump three or four times. How far did you jump each time?
Regardless of the specific distance, the jumps probably clustered in a narrow range. A d20 makes the minimum result just as likely as the maximum result (5% chance for each) - every result is equally likely - even an 11. Take a 2d10 and while the chance for a minimum result is equal to that of a maxium result (1%), you're 10x more likely to roll an average result (10% chance of an 11).
Using the same formula, the odds of rolling an 8-14 are ~60%, giving our hypothetical jumper a range of 6-9 feet for the majority of their jumps. There's only a 20% chance that they jump less than that or more than that per jump.
By forcing the dice to create the bell curve, you can use a simple formula rather than something like a table lookup: ie, 1-4=4 feet, 5-8=5 feet, 9-10=6 feet, 11-12=7 feet, 13-16=8 feet, 17-20=9 feet etc..
I personally like consistently applied formulas (I think they're easy to remember), and I think that most skilled people should usually do 'about as well as average' on most things they do.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;731942I personally like consistently applied formulas (I think they're easy to remember), and I think that most skilled people should usually do 'about as well as average' on most things they do.
Unless it's something like auditioning for a movie role or selling a screenplay, in which case results will be clustered more towards total failures and total successes than "average" results. That would be more like a U-Curve than a bell-curve.
I don't know if I agree.
If I'm an actor, most of my audtions will be 'about as well as I can do'. If I'm a mediocre actor, I'm not going to do extraordinarily good at my tryout.
On the other hand, if we're talking about evaluation of the tryouts, 'average' is 'bad'.
It's like when you roll 3d6. You know that only 1/216 of your rolls are going to be 18, but if we have all rolls between 12-14 (which is really good, all things considered) we'll still say we 'have sucky stats'. People expect things to be 'really good', even when statistically they're unlikely.
I guess, even when something is uncommon, we can still be exposed to it so often that it seems more common than it is.
I suspect the more "all-or-nothing" a task, the more likely it will tend towards a U-curve rather than a bell-curve. If "mediocre" simply isn't good enough, the person will push until they either fail or succeed completely.
Perhaps gamers with 9-5 office jobs are more likely to view performance as a bell-curve, whereas freelancers and artists tend more towards U-curve or "hockey stick" thinking.
Quote from: Warthur;731910This is reasonably easy to work out:
0-10%: No chance of critical success, 10% chance of critical failure.
11-21%: 1% chance of critical success, 9% chance of critical failure.
22-32%: 2% chance of critical success, 8% chance of critical failure.
33-43%: 3% chance of critical success, 7% chance of critical failure.
44-54%: 4% chance of critical success, 6% chance of critical failure.
55-65%: 5% chance of critical success, 5% chance of critical failure.
66-76%: 6% chance of critical success, 4% chance of critical failure.
77-87%: 7% chance of critical success, 3% chance of critical failure.
88-98%: 8% chance of critical success, 2% chance of critical failure.
99%: 9% chance of critical success, 1% chance of critical failure.
100%: 10% chance of critical success, 0% chance of critical failure.
Note that it takes 22% in a skill before you raise the chance of critical success to 2% or more, whereas the chance of critical failure doesn't go below 2% until you're at 99%. Grim and perilous indeed!
While I lamented the math when I came up with the match mechanic, it's a particularly easy way to conjugate bad (or great) results, rather than determining Degrees of Success using WFRP 2E standards. But players seem to like it, and there are ways to avoid Critical Failures (or guarantee Critical Success) in particular cases through Talents and Traits.
I don't like rolling under in my games. Percentile dice games have never went over too well with my group, even well designed ones like Bare Bones Fantasy which use the roll under D100 mechanic. Our gaming group wants to equal or exceed DNs when we roll.
There is a reason Earthdawn and Savage Worlds (roll up systems) are our favorites. Its about big numbers and dice explosions. No one ever forgets that time the Troll Cavalryman on foot rolled Step 14 and scored 104 damage by rolling up the 20 multiple times to kill a bloatform outright. The excitement just is missing in systems that do not have a roll up mechanic for us.
For epic Dice Explosions...Rolemaster.
Quote from: slayride35;731970I don't like rolling under in my games. Percentile dice games have never went over too well with my group, even well designed ones like Bare Bones Fantasy which use the roll under D100 mechanic. Our gaming group wants to equal or exceed DNs when we roll.
There is a reason Earthdawn and Savage Worlds (roll up systems) are our favorites. Its about big numbers and dice explosions. No one ever forgets that time the Troll Cavalryman on foot rolled Step 14 and scored 104 damage by rolling up the 20 multiple times to kill a bloatform outright. The excitement just is missing in systems that do not have a roll up mechanic for us.
If your group's idea of a memorable adventure is based on somebody's dice rolling, I pity you all.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731914OK, so we're back to the topic of situational modifier effects being diminished for extreme values on a bell curve, as discussed earlier. From a gameplay perspective I can understand why some players (e.g. Brander) might prefer their ultra-skilled sniper PC not have to worry about stuff like wind, moving targets etc., although from a realism perspective there are many examples to the contrary (e.g. an average hockey player won't notice the difference between a wood and a composite stick, whereas an NHL players does).
Since others have done a good job of continuing the bell curve thing, I will leave it to them, but I do want to address the equipment issue. I'm largely convinced that in "reality" equipment is largely irrelevant to anyone but those with higher skill, as long as it's not bad and it's the right kind (don't bring a cricket stick to a hockey match, except for the fights maybe). I suspect a very similar situation for most other equipment as well (where it matters).
In shooting circles I've heard it phrased as "A 1 MOA (Minute of Angle) gun is wasted on a 3 MOA shooter.*" And actually in this case, I think if you model equipment as bonuses, a percentile system would be better (though still not good) than a bell curve, though the best solution for "realism" would be to NOT model equipment as a static bonus, though a static bonus is simple and might be best for ease of play in some games.
*In this layman's terms (I shoot, but not competitively) MOA is a measure of the cone where a the bullet can go after exiting the barrel before the shooter is involved. Like when the gun is bolted to a table. The point being that if the shooter can't consistently get shots within a 1 MOA cone, then the gun is wasted on that shooter. Yes the 1 MOA gun will make the resulting cone very slightly smaller than a 3 MOA gun, the shooters skill is much more a component than the quality of the gun.
Quote from: Brander;731989I'm largely convinced that in "reality" equipment is largely irrelevant to anyone but those with higher skill, as long as it's not bad and it's the right kind (don't bring a cricket stick to a hockey match, except for the fights maybe). I suspect a very similar situation for most other equipment as well (where it matters).
Totally depends on the equipment IMO. A walking stick will benefit someone of poor conditioning more than it will benefit a limber Sherpa, whereas spiked shoes might actually impede a clumsy person's mobility meanwhile aiding an experienced hiker. It's really case-by-case.
Quote from: Old Geezer;731980If your group's idea of a memorable adventure is based on somebody's dice rolling, I pity you all.
Oh, come on you old curmudgeon, you don't recall a game or two where someone throwing "20" when they needed it doesn't bring back fond memories?
Regardless (and the rest is more in general than a direct reply to Old Geezer), I do wonder if the odds of rolling "best" might impact some people's liking of a given dice system, 20 on a d20 occurs (all statistically speaking) 1 out 20 rolls, 12 on 2d6 is 1/36 rolls, 100 (or 99 if 0=0) on d% is 1/100 rolls, whereas on as small as a 3d6 an 18 is only seen (again statistically) 1 in 216 rolls.
A part of this is a bell curve allows for modeling much rarer events (that would require using 3 or more d10s or a reroll to model) once you get into more dice of higher values. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to the system designer and the players, but it's there.
copy/paste the following into anydice.com and you can see the exact details if you desire (1d20 is just there for fun and maybe reference):
output 1d6 named "1d6"
output 2d6 named "2d6"
output 3d6 named "3d6"
output 4d6 named "4d6"
output 1d20 named "1d20"
I think rolls can be memorable, but its also the surrounding situation that gives them context that is what is great.
For instance, I was playing a Paladin in one game, and a rock troll type thing was kicking all our asses. And I told everyone to run and I would hold it off while they got away. I was pretty much expecting to lose the character, but it just seemed right that the pally would sacrifice himself for the others' survival.
Anyway, this was followed by 3 rounds of it missing me (with two attacks each round that would hit me on a 7 or more), and 3 rounds of me critting (3.x, I was using a 19-20 crit weapon and for some reason I was just ridiculously lucky), and it went down. I was heavily injured (I was injured before everyone ran), but I limped off to meet up with everyone else and it was awesome.
Now, the situation was memorable anyway, a paladin staying behind to save everyone, but the fact that I then seemed to be blessed by the dice gods made it MORE memorable.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731854Yeah it's really just the 75% calculation that can require some brainpower, but jumping straight to 50% might be too big a leap. I think straight-up -10% stacking penalties are good enough for me, although the occasional arithmetic doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game (as long as the GM doesn't make every test a skill x 75% challenge. :))
Honestly, if this is an issue for any players, they or the GM should just make a quick lookup chart, and the character sheet should have space to write in the fractional values. Job done, minimal fuss, and I don't care about removing the arithmetic because game night is not maths night.
Quote from: Old Geezer;731980If your group's idea of a memorable adventure is based on somebody's dice rolling, I pity you all.
Memorable adventures: no; memorable scenes: yes
Quote from: Ladybird;731998Honestly, if this is an issue for any players, they or the GM should just make a quick lookup chart, and the character sheet should have space to write in the fractional values. Job done, minimal fuss, and I don't care about removing the arithmetic because game night is not maths night.
Sometimes it's a matter of pride too. Nobody wants to be that lone player who can't calculate 62 x 75% in their head. :)
Quote from: Vonn;731999Memorable adventures: no; memorable scenes: yes
Yeah, I agree. A couple years back I was playing WFRP1e and ended up in a ring fighting a minotaur (some circus or something). I punched him and kept rolling 6s. Took him out in one punch. Very memorable scene. And one totally dependent on die rolls. (well, either that, or play a storygame and just narrate the whole thing, but I doubt OG does that ;)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732000Sometimes it's a matter of pride too. Nobody wants to be that lone player who can't calculate 62 x 75% in their head. :)
I've got more patience and respect for people who will admit they can't do something, and ask for help, than those who will soldier on in ignorance and fail in confusion.
If you can't do basic fractions and you're not mentally challenged, burn with shame.
Quote from: Ladybird;732006I've got more patience and respect for people who will admit they can't do something, and ask for help, than those who will soldier on in ignorance and fail in confusion.
Honestly, the 75% issue hasn't been an obstacle. It comes up maybe once per player per session on average, and stalls play for maybe 5-10 seconds at most. Aside from that (and the slightly unintuitive blackjack system) RQ6 is a great percentile system IMO with some surprising innovations for such an old and well-used mechanic.
Quote from: herr arnulfe;732000sometimes it's a matter of pride too. Nobody wants to be that lone player who can't calculate 62 x 75% in their head. :)
"What's 62 x 75%! Now!"
"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"
Quote from: Emperor Norton;731996I think rolls can be memorable, but its also the surrounding situation that gives them context that is what is great.
This, on the other hand, I would totally agree with. "Expecting to die but the gods (the dice) declared otherwise" is a great story.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%! Now!"
"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"
Its funny, I almost referred to this as Fuck You percent earlier, but was too lazy to make the post.
I LIKE math and don't feel like figuring it out during play. (That being said, its something that can be easily written down on sheets preplay).
Quote from: Emperor Norton;731996I think rolls can be memorable, but its also the surrounding situation that gives them context that is what is great.
For instance, I was playing a Paladin in one game, and a rock troll type thing was kicking all our asses. And I told everyone to run and I would hold it off while they got away. I was pretty much expecting to lose the character, but it just seemed right that the pally would sacrifice himself for the others' survival.
Anyway, this was followed by 3 rounds of it missing me (with two attacks each round that would hit me on a 7 or more), and 3 rounds of me critting (3.x, I was using a 19-20 crit weapon and for some reason I was just ridiculously lucky), and it went down. I was heavily injured (I was injured before everyone ran), but I limped off to meet up with everyone else and it was awesome.
Now, the situation was memorable anyway, a paladin staying behind to save everyone, but the fact that I then seemed to be blessed by the dice gods made it MORE memorable.
Awesome story, and I agree: I roll a crit in a random low risk fight and I'm like "cool! That is going to hit, next!" I roll the same crit at the mummy when it's taken out three of my mates and I'm like "FUCK YES! Who's your daddy now, bitch! High fives! Whoo hoo! Now let's loot the place, pick up the fallen, and get the hell out of here."
Context matters.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731911I never asked for an explanation of bell curves. I asked why it's important for the results to be clustered towards average, and how that impacts the feel of a game.
Which was answered in the second sentence of the original post and then expanded upon at great length. Congratulations on being an illiterate fuckwit.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731933Is that more realistic than a flat modifier? I don't know much about sniping, but I can think of several examples where a normal person would be penalized more heavily by circumstantial factors while attempting a difficult task than a skilled person would be. (e.g. normal climber vs. skilled climber trying to scale a sheer cliff without a top-rope).
What you're claiming a bell curve fails to model is exactly what a bell curve models. The guy who's an expert climber and needs to roll a 4 or better on 3d6 to succeed benefits very little from a +2 rope bonus. The guy who needs to roll a 12 or better to succeed benefits a lot from a +2 rope bonus.
(The guy who's so incompetent he doesn't even know what a rope is or how it could be used to assist in this type of climb and needs to roll an 18 or better to succeed also doesn't benefit much.)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731927You could still cluster the majority of rolls in the "yes, but" category in DW using a linear randomizer though.
Sure. But then you'd have to bell curve the modifiers in the system and that's a lot more difficult in actual practice.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;731944Unless it's something like auditioning for a movie role or selling a screenplay, in which case results will be clustered more towards total failures and total successes than "average" results.
No, the result of a given audition is still going to cluster around your typical range of performance.
Your success or failure at a given audition is going to be dependent on clearing a certain base minimum ("we're not doing this project because we can't find any actor good enough") and in competition with the other people auditioning for the role. If your typical range of performance is significantly higher than those competing for the same roles, you'll succeed in getting cast a lot. If it's significantly lower, you won't get cast very much. Swap your competition for one of a different caliber and your rate of success will change.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055Which was answered in the second sentence of the original post and then expanded upon at great length. Congratulations on being an illiterate fuckwit.
Your second sentence was: "
This results in a reduced "swinginess" in common outcomes, but doesn't create a "claustrophobic" environment where characters are frequently either guaranteed success or failure."As we've already discussed, "reduced swinginess" is irrelevant if you're not measuring degrees of success and failure, and if you are measuring DoS/DoF, it can easily be achieved with a linear randomizer. But instead of addressing this you proceeded to explain (in a very roundabout way) the basic structure of bell curves.
So apologies if I missed any hidden nuance in your explanation. "Swinginess" and "claustrophobic" are the kinds of empty theory-buzzwords that bell curve proponents often bandy around without really knowing what they're talking about, so my eyes might have glazed over while reading your post.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055What you're claiming a bell curve fails to model is exactly what a bell curve models. The guy who's an expert climber and needs to roll a 4 or better on 3d6 to succeed benefits very little from a +2 rope bonus. The guy who needs to roll a 12 or better to succeed benefits a lot from a +2 rope bonus.
No, I didn't claim that a bell curve fails to model this. My "climbing without a top-rope" scenario was a counter-example in response to Brander's claim that equipment bonuses should uniformly favour more skilled characters, in cases where the task is very difficult.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055Sure. But then you'd have to bell curve the modifiers in the system and that's a lot more difficult in actual practice.
Why would you have to bell-curve the DW modifiers if the "yes, but" range was being stretched along a linear probability scale? Is there something sacred about the exact percentage needed for a 10+ on 2d6 if rolling at +1?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732055No, the result of a given audition is still going to cluster around your typical range of performance.
Your success or failure at a given audition is going to be dependent on clearing a certain base minimum ("we're not doing this project because we can't find any actor good enough") and in competition with the other people auditioning for the role. If your typical range of performance is significantly higher than those competing for the same roles, you'll succeed in getting cast a lot. If it's significantly lower, you won't get cast very much. Swap your competition for one of a different caliber and your rate of success will change.
Funny, most casting directors I've talked to say they usually get a bunch of amazing performances that make their decision really hard, and then a bunch of duds (trying too hard and overacting?). Rarely is there one standout actor followed by a gradually increasing proportion of slightly less impressive ones. That's why they hold multiple callback rounds and often cast the part based on which actor has the best hair, or which one reminds the director of his first lover.
The U-curve often comes up in classroom performance evaluations too, as well as distribution-of-wealth analyses.
Here's a relevant article from today's Toronto Star:
Ding, Dong, the Bell Curve is Dead
http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/05/09/ding_dong_the_bell_curve_is_dead.html
Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.
Quote from: One Horse Town;732064Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.
Some people just can't seem to handle their little RPG bubble-verses being turned upside-down. :)
Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%! Now!"
"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"
Haha.
In CoC I suggested rolling a separate d5 (a d10 numbered 1-5 twice) with every roll to quickly determine critical successes without having to calculate what 20% of your skill level is, but my players didn't mind doing the math - either that or they didn't understand my explanation - so the d5 remains unused... ;)
Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%! Now!"
"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"
I double-checked and it's actually stat x 67% for challenging tasks, not 75%, which is even harder to calculate on-the fly IMO. So yeah, a little brown streak on an otherwise good system. For our group it hasn't posed a problem, but I could see it causing embarrassment if one player wasn't very good at math.
Quote from: 3rik;732068Haha.
In CoC I suggested rolling a separate d5 (a d10 numbered 1-5 twice) with every roll to quickly determine critical successes without having to calculate what 20% of your skill level is, but my players didn't mind doing the math - either that or they didn't understand my explanation - so the d5 remains unused... ;)
For 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.
Quote from: Bill;732083So 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.
Writing down all those incremental numbers for each skill and then adjusting them every time a skill increases would probably push a % system into "too much hassle for the benefit" in my books (roughly on par with using symbol dice) but it's certainly a good solution for people determined to play that system.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732045"What's 62 x 75%! Now!"
"It's FUCK YOU, that's what it is!"
That is my new response to any number-related question.
(Previously, it was "I'm an accountant. I can only do maths for other people when someone is paying me. Ante up.")
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732090Writing down all those incremental numbers for each skill and then adjusting them every time a skill increases would probably push a % system into "too much hassle for the benefit" in my books (roughly on par with using symbol dice) but it's certainly a good solution for people determined to play that system.
Re-enter your character info into a spreadsheet and use that for your character sheet, or ask the GM or someone else in the group to do it for you. It's a little more work, yeah, but doing it pre-game saves time doing it in-game and killing the momentum.
Quote from: One Horse Town;732064Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.
When any RPGsite conversation turns into tedious word-picking, the useful part is long-since over.
Quote from: Ladybird;732102Re-enter your character info into a spreadsheet and use that for your character sheet, or ask the GM or someone else in the group to do it for you. It's a little more work, yeah, but doing it pre-game saves time doing it in-game and killing the momentum.
Agreed, any system requiring that level of constant math should offer an Excel-based character sheet.
Herr Arnulfe, the article you cite is a case of some people misapplying statistics, suddenly realizing their mistake, and then patting themselves on the back for their discovery.
It's also irrelevant to this discussion because what a diced resolution system produces is variations in individual performance; it has nothing to do with distributions of performance across individuals.
Back to bell curves, I agree that the factors influencing performance in the real world probably don't "stack" in a simple manner. But for an approximation, I think the shape of the differential effects of varying difficulty on people of different skill is better with a normal curve. This is almost certainly true with something like running a 100m dash or doing a broad jump. With other activities, it's harder to measure.
You'd first have to come up with a meaningful measure of performance. Say, if we were talking about marksmanship, the % of shots that hit a target. Then for an individual we'd measure performance as we varied the target size, range, wind, rate of fire, and qualitative factors such as equipment. This will give you an n-dimensional plot. My hypothesis is that you can derive a single number (scalar) from each person's plot, which we'll call "skill", and people with similar skill will have similar plots.
With me so far? This is just groundwork.
Quote from: Piestrio;731183Well that settles it, if Kiero hates it it must be good design.
Next thread?
Quote from: One Horse Town;732064Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.
Sometimes, someone in this forum utters a pearl of great wisdom. In this thread we have been honored with two such pearls.
This is not sarcasm. I agree with both of you 100%.
Quote from: Arminius;732112Herr Arnulfe, the article you cite is a case of some people misapplying statistics, suddenly realizing their mistake, and then patting themselves on the back for their discovery.
It's also irrelevant to this discussion because what a diced resolution system produces is variations in individual performance; it has nothing to do with distributions of performance across individuals.
Don't you think there's ever a correlation between individual performance and group performance? Granted the relationship is probably weaker for raw attributes like strength or endurance vs. "skill", but to assume they're completely separate would mean that some people are just naturally inferior or simply aren't trying.
For example, isn't it conceivable that an actor who's rehearsing or performing might cluster more towards average (i.e. bell curve) over 100+ attempts, whereas an actor going for auditions would cluster towards the extremes (i.e. U-curve) after 100+ attempts? Or that a climber scaling a cliff with top-rope and harness would perform on a bell curve, whereas freeclimbing a cliff without any aids would follow a U-curve pattern instead?
Note: these new "anti-bell" studies are measuring the performance of athletes, politicians and academics, which tend to be all-or-nothing vocations. It would seem that in RPGs, a large proportion of tasks would be comparable to those. Rarely does a GM ask for rolls to determine how many lines of code a PC managed to program in a workday, for example.
Quote from: Arminius;732112Back to bell curves, I agree that the factors influencing performance in the real world probably don't "stack" in a simple manner. But for an approximation, I think the shape of the differential effects of varying difficulty on people of different skill is better with a normal curve. This is almost certainly true with something like running a 100m dash or doing a broad jump. With other activities, it's harder to measure.
For every reality-based example that supports a bell-curve effect for modifiers, I can provide a reality-based counter-example that supports a differently-shaped curve, or even an opposite one. I could continue this quid pro quo across a variety of fields, ad infinitum. It would be extremely tedious, both for us and everyone reading this thread, so I hope you won't take me up on the challenge. :) I've already provided a few counter-examples earlier in this thread.
Quote from: 3rik;732068Haha.
In CoC I suggested rolling a separate d5 (a d10 numbered 1-5 twice) with every roll to quickly determine critical successes without having to calculate what 20% of your skill level is, but my players didn't mind doing the math - either that or they didn't understand my explanation - so the d5 remains unused... ;)
One thing I love about MRQ2 and the BRP golden book, is how easy it is to calculate in your head criticals and specials, because decimals are always rounded up. For example, 57% in MRQ2 the critical is 6% (you take the first cipher and round it up). In RQ3 it was so convoluted that we always checked the chart. In MRQ2 we never had to.
Quote from: Arminius;732112You'd first have to come up with a meaningful measure of performance. Say, if we were talking about marksmanship, the % of shots that hit a target. Then for an individual we'd measure performance as we varied the target size, range, wind, rate of fire, and qualitative factors such as equipment. This will give you an n-dimensional plot. My hypothesis is that you can derive a single number (scalar) from each person's plot, which we'll call "skill", and people with similar skill will have similar plots.
With me so far? This is just groundwork.
Such a model should also take into account individual psychology. e.g. A generalized performance curve for myself probably looks something like "inverted camel-humps", with results clustered in really bad, average and really good, and comparatively fewer results in kinda bad and kinda good. The reason for this is that I tend to either give up or push for at least average when things are looking "kinda bad". And when things are looking "kinda good", I usually have enough patience and/or perfectionism to push for really good.
But I wouldn't project my own performance psychology on anyone else, hence my preference for flat probabilities when GMing.
Quote from: Old Geezer;731980If your group's idea of a memorable adventure is based on somebody's dice rolling, I pity you all.
Memorable rolls. When it comes to game mechanics, the gaming group likes exploding dice. One of the reasons is that big number. An improbable roll can make a scene really memorable. But its mostly about being able to go far beyond what would normally be the statistical limit on a normal roll, for that big "you rolled what?" factor. I even played TORG and Shatterzone for a bit because of the d10 roll ups back in the day before I found Earthdawn. Its just a feature not offered in a lot of the other RPG games that I have played, like roll under d100% games, D20, etc. The other reason is I just like rolling equal or higher than DNs than lower than or equal to DNs in games.
Our most memorable adventures have been the ones lately in Savage Worlds in 50 Fathoms/Deadlands: The Flood due to a lot of buy-in by all the characters and tremendous roleplaying. And Earthdawn Kratas Quest where we killed Garlthik the One-Eye then betrayed our allies Mordom and Vistrosh who helped us bring him down and took over Kratas.
Of course one of our most memorable past games was D20/DnD3.0 with my Gnome Druid taking the Tamer of Beast class from Masters of Wild and trying to gain enough levels to tame the Tarraque and let it loose on civilization, bringing the whole world back to nature by force. And everyone else was playing rangers, barbarians, clerics of Obad-Hai who were completely down with this. And my menagerie of awakened magical beasts that all could talk.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732061As we've already discussed, "reduced swinginess" is irrelevant if you're not measuring degrees of success and failure
What a bizarrely absurd claim. All it requires to become significant is to attempt multiple tasks over time (particularly multiple tasks at varying levels of difficulty).
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732061"Swinginess" and "claustrophobic" are the kinds of empty theory-buzzwords that bell curve proponents often bandy around without really knowing what they're talking about, so my eyes might have glazed over while reading your post.
So you want someone to explain to you how the mechanics "feel" at the game table, but you want them to do it strictly without using any words that describe how they feel.
... Fascinating.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732062Here's a relevant article from today's Toronto Star:
Ding, Dong, the Bell Curve is Dead
http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/05/09/ding_dong_the_bell_curve_is_dead.html
The 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.
... So I'm assuming that you posted this article as an admission that you were wrong and that mechanics should use bell curves when modeling individual performance in order to reflect that consistency?
(Bearing in mind that I don't actually have a preference for one mechanic over the other.)
Quote from: One Horse Town;732064Once Justin has wheeled out the illiterate line, it's not worth continuing the discussion, Jude.
It's true. Once we've identified this level of incompetence, there's not much more to discuss.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732245What a bizarrely absurd claim. All it requires to become significant is to attempt multiple tasks over time (particularly multiple tasks at varying levels of difficulty).
Seriously, it really doesn't matter. 92 and 62 are both failures in percentile if you're rolling against 60 without measuring DoS/DoF. The end result is a binary outcome regardless the "swinginess" potential.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732245So you want someone to explain to you how the mechanics "feel" at the game table, but you want them to do it strictly without using any words that describe how they feel.
I asked for elaboration of your vague descriptors and you declined. At least Brander was able to frame his argument in concrete terms that mean something to another gamer (i.e. mitigating modifier effects for skilled characters).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;732245The 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. “We’re trying to understand the flow of people in and out of the elite group,” he said."Maybe you're just uncomfortable with the idea that you're a loser, clustered together with a bunch of other losers, looking across a vast gulf of empty mediocrity at the winners on the other side. Especially since you view modifiers as piddly incremental proportions of your base score. If only modifiers were flat bonuses, you might have a chance of bridging that gap!
Quote from: Elfdart;731671The only issue I can think of regarding d% is that way back when, they didn't make dedicated percentile dice . . .
Whereas nowadays you can roll a Zocchihedron, and (when it eventually stops) squint while trying to figure out which number is on top: what an improvement!
Tossing a couple of dice of different colors or otherwise distinct is about a moth's whisper of difference from tossing two identical dice (and then needing to add the results) in Craps or Settlers of Catan.
I thought the article was funny because it sounds to me like they're consistently describing a 'bell' shape. A bell isn't just a hump - there is a flange around the edge before you get to the steep middle portions.
And of course, it seems to ignore the fact that the 'worst performers' aren't included. If you were measuring everyone's ability to hit a baseball, there are some who would NEVER hit, but when you measure professional baseball players, you're well outside of the 'normal population'. Once you eliminate everyone under a certain level of basic competency, you get rid of the bell shape completely.
Quote from: Adric;731714For D%, the smallest amount you can improve is 1%. If skills regularly increase by more than 1% in a given system, why track it at such fine detail? Just round it off to the nearest 5% and use D20 or the nearest 10% and use D10.
The first big d% game, RuneQuest, did in fact increase basic skill ratings in 5% increments. So, why use d%?
1) Decimal dice were more readily available than dedicated 1-20 dice (which were most often made by coloring half the digits on a dice with 0-9 twice).
2) The game used proportional chances (e.g., 1/20 and 1/5) for special results. Since a second dice would be called for anyway, why not use a pair of decimal dice for a 1-100 roll?
3) Most people are accustomed to seeing probabilities expressed as %.
4) Percentile chances can approximate the probabilities that many other dice or combinations of dice permit, and exactly reproduce the spreads of some.
QuoteAnother problem with a pass/fail system that uses d% is that 9 times out of 10, the second die won't matter. If the target is say, 55%, the 10's die needs to be a 5 for there to be any tension on the 1's die. If the target number is a flat multiple of 10, and there are no modifiers, the second die never matters at all.
Ditto half the numbers on a d20, but in both cases you have the option (if you've got a d10 in addition to d20) of not tossing what never matters at all.
So what? What makes this a problem, even in cases to which it's relevant? And are you really not aware that its
not being relevant, that there
are factors less than 1 in 20 that interest us, is the main reason we choose to use d%?
The problem (for some tastes) of making 1 roll in 20 a fumble, is that in a fight with 5 combatants on each side, you end up with someone losing his weapon or whatnot on average every other round.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;732359I thought the article was funny because it sounds to me like they're consistently describing a 'bell' shape. A bell isn't just a hump - there is a flange around the edge before you get to the steep middle portions.
And of course, it seems to ignore the fact that the 'worst performers' aren't included. If you were measuring everyone's ability to hit a baseball, there are some who would NEVER hit, but when you measure professional baseball players, you're well outside of the 'normal population'. Once you eliminate everyone under a certain level of basic competency, you get rid of the bell shape completely.
If you want to read more, there's also a Forbes article including a diagram of the curve (see below - it's flipped around from what we normally see in RPGs). And you're correct, the right-hand portion of the curve is cut off because people below a certain performance level wouldn't even be included in the analysis. How sharply does the curve rise again when including the "losers"? Probably depends on the field.
(http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/5/005/043/0af/203b82f.jpg)
Here's the Forbes article:
The Myth of the Bell Curve: Look for the Hyper Performershttp://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/19/the-myth-of-the-bell-curve-look-for-the-hyper-performers/
A fact often overlooked by gamers is that bell curves don't emerge organically from the laws of nature or business. An HR analyst takes all the performance data and manipulates it into a bell regardless of its actual distribution. The only reason a Gaussian curve was chosen for this purpose is because it encourages "performance stability", which at one time in western corporate history was considered the ideal. The bell curve is just an analytical tool that provides consistency from one fiscal year to the next, and the only reason it's stuck around so long is because of corporate inertia. People have been complaining about bell curves as a performance metric for a long time.
The power law distribution, or a close enough approximation, is common in Internet things. It might not hold here, but the poster with the most posts at, say, rpgnet, probably has about twice as many as the second most proliferate. Ditto the most looked image at Flickr, the person who spends the most time playing World of Warcraft, and so on.
Quote from: Phillip;732366The power law distribution, or a close enough approximation, is common in Internet things. It might not hold here, but the poster with the most posts at, say, rpgnet, probably has about twice as many as the second most proliferate. Ditto the most looked image at Flickr, the person who spends the most time playing World of Warcraft, and so on.
And of course, if you plot the Power Law curve to a "# of results" graph, the High Performers category actually takes a downswing to somewhat resemble a bell. What's important is the relative flatness of the curve until you reach the High Performer category, and the lack of a "lip" that peters off gradually.
Quote from: Arminius;732112Herr Arnulfe, the article you cite is a case of some people misapplying statistics, suddenly realizing their mistake, and then patting themselves on the back for their discovery.
QFT
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732363If you want to read more...
"You keep using that..." study
"...I do not think it means what you think it means." - with respect to Mr. Montoya
Quote from: Brander;732375QFT
In many fields, they're finding performance patterns resemble something other than a bell curve. Instead of clustering around the middle before dropping steeply and then tapering off gradually, performance often tends to look more like a hockey stick (or a pair of hockey sticks placed end-to-end perhaps, if you completed the curve).
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732381In many fields, they're finding performance patterns resemble something other than a bell curve. Instead of clustering around the middle before dropping steeply and then tapering off gradually, performance often tends to look more like a hockey stick (or a pair of hockey sticks placed end-to-end perhaps, if you completed the curve).
No shit.
The point of the bell curve is that it measures a full sample. If you limit the sample only to professionals within a given field of expertise, of course the curve is gonna skew towards the high end.
If I take 100,000 random people and test their writing ability, it's probably gonna look kinda like a bell curve.
If I take 1,000 working professional writers, it sure as shit ain't, because those writers are probably all within the top 1% of my previous sample.
To put it in RPG terms, this is like comparing the DEX scores of all D&D characters vs. the ones who took Rogue.
Quote from: J Arcane;732384No shit.
The point of the bell curve is that it measures a full sample. If you limit the sample only to professionals within a given field of expertise, of course the curve is gonna skew towards the high end.
If I take 100,000 random people and test their writing ability, it's probably gonna look kinda like a bell curve.
If I take 1,000 working professional writers, it sure as shit ain't, because those writers are probably all within the top 1% of my previous sample.
To put it in RPG terms, this is like comparing the DEX scores of all D&D characters vs. the ones who took Rogue.
Well, we don't actually know what shape a "universal curve" (i.e. across the entire population) would look like for any given field, because they're only used within specific fields or industries. The closest thing we have are probably school classroom performance evaluations, which often do look like U-curves before the teacher mashes them together in the grading process to produce a "bell curve" of final marks.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732381In many fields, they're finding performance patterns resemble something other than a bell curve. Instead of clustering around the middle before dropping steeply and then tapering off gradually, performance often tends to look more like a hockey stick (or a pair of hockey sticks placed end-to-end perhaps, if you completed the curve).
That's fine, but you are talking about fields where everyone involved exists on the right half of the bell curve. It's not a surprising new discovery that the results don't look like a bell curve. In fact if you take slices out of the bell curve, swap X and Y, look at them as a floor or ceiling, or other things, you get results that look nothing like a bell, even with the exact same data.
Quote from: Brander;732390That's fine, but you are talking about fields where everyone involved exists on the right half of the bell curve. It's not a surprising new discovery that the results don't look like a bell curve. In fact if you take slices out of the bell curve, swap X and Y, look at them as a floor or ceiling, or other things, you get results that look nothing like a bell, even with the exact same data.
It's a bit like starting PC proficiency effectively being 8+ in a 3d6 system right? Which creates a "half-bell", just as we discussed earlier. The point here is that, even if you chop off the left half of the curve, the shape of the remaining portion is often very different from a "half-bell" in reality. (e.g. instead of "diminishing returns" at the high end, the reality is often escalating returns instead).
Here's a baseball example to illustrate potentially opposite curve shapes, depending on the task being attempted:
Fail = Out
Partial Fail = 1st base
Average = 2nd base
Partial Success = 3rd base
Success = Home Run
A batter who's swinging for a double will probably follow bell-curve performance patterns, whereas a batter swinging for a home run will probably follow U-curve patterns instead.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732391It's a bit like starting PC proficiency effectively being 8+ in a 3d6 system right? Which creates a "half-bell", just as we discussed earlier. The point here is that, even if you chop off the left half of the curve, the shape of the remaining portion is often very different from a "half-bell" in reality. (e.g. instead of "diminishing returns" at the high end, the reality is often escalating returns instead).
That's because they are measuring different things. "How many people brought in $X" is a different thing than "which people brought in $X" and while they seem similar they are totally different graphs. One person performing insanely beyond everyone else in the first will at most extend the tail to the right because 1 is still really really close to zero (in any significant population). But, that same person, if you are measuring how much they performed, will result in a power curve, exactly like you were showing, because their performance sets the height of the curve.
Quote from: Brander;732400That's because they are measuring different things. "How many people brought in $X" is a different thing than "which people brought in $X" and while they seem similar they are totally different graphs. One person performing insanely beyond everyone else in the first will at most extend the tail to the right because 1 is still really really close to zero (in any significant population). But, that same person, if you are measuring how much they performed, will result in a power curve, exactly like you were showing, because their performance sets the height of the curve.
To really understand the phenomenon, of course we'd require graphs plotting multiple, repeated performances from a single individual. However, I think what these new studies can show us is that the trajectory of performance improvement often doesn't follow a "diminishing returns" algorithm at the high end, but rather the opposite.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732402To really understand the phenomenon, of course we'd require graphs plotting multiple, repeated performances from a single individual. However, I think what these new studies can show us is that the trajectory of performance improvement often doesn't follow a "diminishing returns" algorithm at the high end, but rather the opposite.
What you just wrote reads to me as: "Because Apples aren't Oranges we should eat Strawberries."
You are conflating "chance of success" with "degree of success." Each of which would be a differently shaped curve. Or not a curve in the case of pass/fail only.
Quote from: Brander;732409What you just wrote reads to me as: "Because Apples aren't Oranges we should eat Strawberries."
You are conflating "chance of success" with "degree of success." Each of which would be a differently shaped curve. Or not a curve in the case of pass/fail only.
If you're a star performer in your company, and the next guy above you is 50% more productive, and the guy above him is 150% more productive, do you think it makes sense that your next "skill level" should only give you a 2% increase?
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732397Here's a baseball example to illustrate potentially opposite curve shapes, depending on the task being attempted:
Fail = Out
Partial Fail = 1st base
Average = 2nd base
Partial Success = 3rd base
Success = Home Run
A batter who's swinging for a double will probably follow bell-curve performance patterns, whereas a batter swinging for a home run will probably follow U-curve patterns instead.
So what you're saying is, you know even less about baseball than you do statistics.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732414If you're a star performer in your company, and the next guy above you is 50% more productive, and the guy above him is 150% more productive, do you think it makes sense that your next "skill level" should only give you a 2% increase?
The observations of this kind of pattern I've seen don't have anything clearly to do with skill improvement. They have to do with popularity, and with the commonality of rubbish versus the rarity of excellence, and the frequency of those who get into something just a little versus obsessives -- the perhaps vastest population ignoring or unaware of the thing not getting counted at all -- and suchlike things.
There do seem to be fields in which a class of 'great' geniuses are tremendously more productive than merely 'good' talents; but those are "born, not made." Not only do they learn more quickly from similar experiences, but they learn things beyond what the merely good attain with any amount of effort.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732419So what you're saying is, you know even less about baseball than you do statistics.
How would you describe the performance curve for batting then? It's impossible to achieve better than a homerun, so assume that's the top end and "out" is the bottom end.
Quote from: Phillip;732420The observations of this kind of pattern I've seen don't have anything clearly to do with skill improvement. They have to do with popularity, and with the commonality of rubbish versus the rarity of excellence, and suchlike things.
There do seem to be fields in which a class of 'great' geniuses are tremendously more productive than merely 'good' talents; but those are "born, not made." Not only do they learn more quickly from similar experiences, but they learn things beyond what the merely good attain with any amount of effort.
Of course, the nature of the task also influences its performance curve, but in these new studies they've observed that movement of employees in and out of the elite group does occur (i.e. it's not static) so being a natural genius might help you reach the elite level, but it doesn't explain the entire picture.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732424How would you describe the performance curve for batting then? It's impossible to achieve better than a homerun, so assume that's the top end and "out" is the bottom end.
The goal of an at bat is not to hit a home run. Usually the goal is to reach base safely, but it may also be to move a runner to the next base or to drive in a runner already on base.
That said, there is a category of productive outs - bunts, sacrifices - that your analogy completely overlooks.
And then there are walks, which are neither hits nor outs but get the batter on base and may score runs.
Batting does not conform to a "performance curve" because the goals of an at bat vary, by batter and by situation.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732424How would you describe the performance curve for batting then? It's impossible to achieve better than a homerun, so assume that's the top end and "out" is the bottom end.
Now baseball is not my game, but pretty sure the statisticians use batting average where a home run and getting to first base count the same.
Now under bro code stats, the home run is worth way more. ;)
Quote from: Old One Eye;732486Now baseball is not my game, but pretty sure the statisticians use batting average where a home run and getting to first base count the same.
Slugging percentage (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/slugging_percentage) is one measure used to differentiate between singles and extra base hits.
In my son's last tournament, his batting average was .600 but his slugging percentage was .800.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732485The goal of an at bat is not to hit a home run. Usually the goal is to reach base safely, but it may also be to move a runner to the next base or to drive in a runner already on base.
That said, there is a category of productive outs - bunts, sacrifices - that your analogy completely overlooks.
And then there are walks, which are neither hits nor outs but get the batter on base and may score runs.
Batting does not conform to a "performance curve" because the goals of an at bat vary, by batter and by situation.
Sure, the goals of a batter are different in every situation. In some cases Chris Carter might be trying to get on base instead of hitting a homerun (although
usually he's going for the big hit; likewise Shane Victorino is
usually just trying to get on base). Yes there are "productive outs" and triples are exceedingly rare for all hitters etc. I wasn't making a scientific claim here, just describing a general trend.
Quote from: Old One Eye;732486Now baseball is not my game, but pretty sure the statisticians use batting average where a home run and getting to first base count the same.
Now under bro code stats, the home run is worth way more. ;)
Ah yes, but if you look at the batting averages, the "base hitter" types usually have higher averages meanwhile the "sluggers" have lower ones (albeit with more homeruns). The sluggers sacrifice overall success rates for higher rates of critical success.
Here's a challenge for any bell curve proponents who feel up to it. Find one set of raw human performance data (either for a group, or repeated attempts by an individual) that resembled a bell curve before a researcher got his hands on it and squished the data into a bell shape for analysis.
If you can find one set of data matching this criterion, I'll concede a pyrrhic thread victory. If you can find two sets, I'll concede total thread victory. I'll also be curious to know how many data sets you stumbled across in the process that resembled nothing like a bell curve (e.g. slopes, partial parabola etc.).
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732495I wasn't making a scientific claim here, just describing a general trend.
And you were doing it wrong.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732525And you were doing it wrong.
And I'm fine with being proven wrong. How about if we change "out" to strikeout, which removes sac flies from the equation. We could also remove triples since they're so rare.
Fail = strikeout
Below average = single
Above Average = double
Success = home run
Using Victorino and Carter's stats from last year, we then have the following numbers:
SO 1B 2B HR
victor 75 97 26 15
carter 212 58 24 29
Using these criteria Victorino's batting curve is more "hump-shaped" while Carter's is more "valley-shaped". If you have a theory explaining how both of them are actually operating on a bell curve, I'm open to that as well.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732537Using these criteria Victorino's batting curve is more "hump-shaped" while Carter's is more "valley-shaped". If you have a theory explaining how both of them are actually operating on a bell curve, I'm open to that as well.
You cannot complain about other statisticans massaging numbers into a bell curve while at the same time massaging numbers into your own preferred curve.
Quote from: Old One Eye;732541You cannot complain about other statisticans massaging numbers into a bell curve while at the same time massaging numbers into your own preferred curve.
My original claim was based purely on qualitative experience playing summer softball for 15+ years and watching games on TV. The number-crunching was just a secondary attempt to quantify Black Vulmea's objections to that claim. If you have an alternative quantitative model in mind, I'm all ears.
* stations archers covering all exits *
* sets thread on fire *
Also, my congratulations to everyone, you've proven there is something worse than "story-gamer wankery." Well done, all.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732548Also, my congratulations to everyone, you've proven there is something worse than "story-gamer wankery." Well done, all.
Probability wank is indeed a horrible thing and I feel the need to be burned just to cleanse the taint of being the most prolific poster in this thread. :)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732537Below average = single
By your deeply and irrevocably flawed reasoning, Ichiro Suzuki is a mostly "below average" hitter.
That is, of course, a profoundly stupid thing to suggest.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732553By your deeply and irrevocably flawed reasoning, Ichiro Suzuki is a mostly "below average" hitter.
That is, of course, a profoundly stupid thing to suggest.
It's the performance curves we're analyzing here, not the individual points. Feel free to offer a bell-curve model instead (I'm judging by the terseness of your replies that you're a bell curve proponent).
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732554It's the performance curves we're analyzing here, not the individual points.
"You cannot complain about other statisticans massaging numbers into a bell curve while at the same time massaging numbers into your own preferred curve."
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732554I'm judging by the terseness of your replies that you're a bell curve proponent.
I'm a proponent of knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
In versions of RQ where you rounded DOWN your skill/5 or /20 to get specials and criticals (RQ3, if memory serves), there's a simple way to determine whether you've scored an exceptional success.
Passing a skill roll with a multiple of 5 on the dice is a special.
Passing a skill roll with a multiple of 20 on the dice is a critical.
Failing a roll with a multiple of 20 is a fumble.
Rounding up messes with that though :(
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732558"You cannot complain about other statisticans massaging numbers into a bell curve while at the same time massaging numbers into your own preferred curve."
Fine, ignore all the numbers if you prefer and just consider my overall qualitative observation that "all-or-nothing tasks skew more towards extreme results". I believe batting is an example of that, but I'm ready to consider other possibilities.
Or, you could accept my challenge of providing a single raw performance dataset that supports bell curves (post #248). Show me you're right. I'm making it easy for you. You don't even have to post the data here, just cite the source (I trust you to know in your heart what is true. :)). Your HR manager can probably provide raw, pre-bell curved data without employee names attached.
Surely if bell curves are a reliable indicator of performance this should be a trivial assignment.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732551Probability wank is indeed a horrible thing and I feel the need to be burned just to cleanse the taint of being the most prolific poster in this thread. :)
Actually rather than probability wank I feel like it's definition-of-terms wank.
I feel dirty. And not in a good way.
People don't like the roll under mechanic because they are favored by game designers who want early characters to suck.
A first level Pathfinder human rogue usually has a +8 or more to Stealth. Most rangers will have a +6 to spot him. He has better than a 50% chance to walk up on someone GEARED to spot him, and a great change to walk up on average people.
If you were to make the exact same guy in something like Dark Heresy or Palladium, he would have well under a 40% chance, maybe less than 30%, to do the same thing, against anybody, and alert characters would probably provide an additional penalty.
A first level d20 character can sneak up to a guard, knife him, calm his horse, and ride off with it.
A starting DH character can trip over his own feet, drop a grenade, and kill himself trying to sneak up on an untrained grandmother.
I think that most of the people who say they don't like roll under mechanics would like them just fine if their skills started out at 70% instead of 30%.
I personally hate playing characters weaker than I am in real life.
Point of Dark Heresy and other such games is that you aren't supposed to simply accept the flat odds - you need to be smart about it and seek out each and every advantage and use it to the maximum effect to rack up your odds of success. Dark Heresy characters who try for a "fair fight" die like flies. You're the goddamn Inquisition, people, you're not meant to fight fair.
Quote from: Warthur;732586Point of Dark Heresy and other such games is that you aren't supposed to simply accept the flat odds - you need to be smart about it and seek out each and every advantage and use it to the maximum effect to rack up your odds of success. Dark Heresy characters who try for a "fair fight" die like flies. You're the goddamn Inquisition, people, you're not meant to fight fair.
It is in the way that the game is played.
PFPC: "When I sneak up on the guy, I'm going to skirt the edge of the room, waiting for him to turn away before I move."
PFGM: "Cool discription, take +2."
PFPC: "Oh good, well I got a 25 so I think I'm good anyway."
vs.
DHPC: "When I sneak up on the guy, I'm going to skirt the edge of the room, waiting for him to turn away before I move."
DHGM: "Dumbass, he has robot ears. You take a -15% to your roll. You should have specified that you were only going to move in time with the roaring furnace which I clearly described 20 minutes ago."
DHPC: "Oh, ok. Well, I have a 32% and I rolled a 65, so I guess I failed?"
What's with the assumption that Pathfinder GMs are saints and DH GMs are assholes? It's just as possible to be a dickwad with Pathfinder modifiers as it is with DH.
Quote from: Warthur;732590What's with the assumption that Pathfinder GMs are saints and DH GMs are assholes? It's just as possible to be a dickwad with Pathfinder modifiers as it is with DH.
In my experience, which is the only way I can talk about something that is not studied, the sorts of game designers and game masters who want to run a game where a PC starts with a 30% in a defining skill want to run that game because they like the low odds of success either because it is a built in railroad they can count on, or because they think it is funny.
Pathfinder plays from the opposite assumption: that the players are competent from the beginning, and the stories are written from the assumption that the GM can not count on a PC failing a roll and failing to have a bypass spell.
Edit: There is built in railroading in the PF system. For example, certain creatures like dragons have unjustifiably high Perception scores, and the anti-combat maneuvers bonus jumps from +1 to +4 from large to the next size up, and then massive additional bonuses are granted for other things, like having four feet, so that NPC monsters can't be anti-climatically grappled down by any sort of player character, but knowing those things in advance as a player at least lets the rails be clearly defined.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732546* stations archers covering all exits *
* sets thread on fire *
:rotfl:They just won't stop, even while the thread is burning...
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732592In my experience, which is the only way I can talk about something that is not studied, the sorts of game designers and game masters who want to run a game where a PC starts with a 30% in a defining skill want to run that game because they like the low odds of success either because it is a built in railroad they can count on, or because they think it is funny.
See, your experience is the exact opposite of my experience, so it's purely anecdotal evidence to which the only reasonable response is "stop playing under asshole GMs".
Quote from: Warthur;732600See, your experience is the exact opposite of my experience, so it's purely anecdotal evidence to which the only reasonable response is "stop playing under asshole GMs".
Well, "don't play with assholes" exactly matches my experience...
Quote from: Old Geezer;732604Well, "don't play with assholes" exactly matches my experience...
And statistically speaking, assholes are significantly more likely to be assholes.
Quote from: Warthur;732606And statistically speaking, assholes are significantly more likely to be assholes.
:eek: Say it ain't so!
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732561Fine, ignore all the numbers if you prefer and just consider my overall qualitative observation that "all-or-nothing tasks skew more towards extreme results".
You mistake me for someone who gives a shit about this tangent.
My interest begins and ends with correcting your misapprehensions about baseball.
Quote from: 3rik;732598:rotfl:They just won't stop, even while the thread is burning...
*sobbing in the inferno* I didn't mean for this to happen...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;732628*sobbing in the inferno* I didn't mean for this to happen...
They never do, son.
* draws axe *
I'll make it quick.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732584People don't like the roll under mechanic because they are favored by game designers who want early characters to suck.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes3/obama_laughing.jpg)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732626You mistake me for someone who gives a shit about this tangent.
My interest begins and ends with correcting your misapprehensions about baseball.
So you're only here for the "definition-of-terms wank" (as OG put it)? Riiight...
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732000Sometimes it's a matter of pride too. Nobody wants to be that lone player who can't calculate 62 x 75% in their head. :)
Who would want to?
Roll D100, if you roll near to or over 62 then you have failed, if you roll around 31 or below then you have succeeded, otherwise you have to work it out.
Only work things out if you really need to.
If you need to work things out, then use a calculator. Not everyone can, or wants to, work out calculations in their head.
Quote from: soltakss;732681Roll D100, if you roll near to or over 62 then you have failed, if you roll around 31 or below then you have succeeded, otherwise you have to work it out.
Only work things out if you really need to.
Agreed, you only need to pause and calculate if the die-roll is somewhere in that "grey area" of uncertainty. In practice some players don't consider that option, and always do the calculation first, but often there's no need.
Quick and dirty way of working out RQ levels of success:
Legend/RQ6: Knock off the digits for criticals.
RQ2/3/BRP: Knock off the digits and double the number for specials, knock off the digits and halve the number for criticals,
So, 65 gives a 6 for a critical in Legend/RQ6, 6x2=12 for specials in RQ2/RQ3/BRP and 6/2=3 for a critical in RQ2/RQ3/BRP.
It might not be exactly right in all cases, but it is quick, easy to work out and close enough.
Or just let the dice do it.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732635They never do, son.
* draws axe *
I'll make it quick.
*Kneels, closes eyes, and prays*
I hope he's rolling d20 instead of D100...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSattPgNgEY
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732659So you're only here for the "definition-of-terms wank" (as OG put it)?
I have no dog in this hunt whatsoever.
Again, I'm a proponent of knowing what the fuck you're talking about. This is theRPGsite; if you say something stupid, expect to be called on it.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732708I have no dog in this hunt whatsoever.
Again, I'm a proponent of knowing what the fuck you're talking about. This is theRPGsite; if you say something stupid, expect to be called on it.
Congratulations, you've completed an amateur peer-review on what's the internet equivalent of napkin notes, with a heavy dose of rudeness on the side. Now stop rubbing your rudimentary jock-cock and say something about the topic at hand (i.e. variable vs. bellcurve performance).
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732713Now stop rubbing your rudimentary jock-cock and say something about the topic at hand (i.e. variable vs. bellcurve performance).
The topic on hand is:
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731165While researching systems pertaining to the Starcraft thread I was reminded of a refrain I've heard a few times over the years - that "roll a d100 under an attribute or % DC" is a widely disliked mechanic. I've never quite understood this sentiment.
Have you noticed this attitude in your circles? What's the reasoning?
The variable vs bellcurve performance is just one paltry example of why people might think that. It's a sideshow, not the main event.
Quote from: soltakss;732721The variable vs bellcurve performance is just one paltry example of why people might think that. It's a sideshow, not the main event.
If Black Vulmea wishes to opine on any other topics related to the thread, that's fine too. :)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732713Congratulations, you've completed an amateur peer-review on what's the internet equivalent of napkin notes, with a heavy dose of rudeness on the side.
Translation?
(http://cdn.chud.com/7/78/340x256px-LL-786e575b_1954-team-america-flailing-arms.gif)
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732713Now stop rubbing your rudimentary jock-cock . . .
Wait for it.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732542My original claim was based purely on qualitative experience playing summer softball for 15+ years and watching games on TV.
Thanks for filling us all in on your baseball resume.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732772Thanks for filling us all in on your baseball resume.
Context, man. Old One Eye suggested I was basing an entire thesis on hypocritical stat manipulation. Trust me, rec softball doesn't make one an expert.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Old Geezer;732780:popcorn:
LOL Fuck I love this smiley. Timing is everything with this one. Ahahaha. :D
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732592In my experience, which is the only way I can talk about something that is not studied, the sorts of game designers and game masters who want to run a game where a PC starts with a 30% in a defining skill want to run that game because they like the low odds of success either because it is a built in railroad they can count on, or because they think it is funny.
Umm... no.
There's this approach to RPGs where the referee sets up the situation and then everyone playing discovers what happens when the players go through the scenario. d100 roll under systems were born in the crucible of old school gaming where even the idea of railroading makes no sense whatsoever.
If you end up with 30% in what you consider to be a defining characteristic it's because that's the chance to succeed that character has. For example, I'm running a Runequest 2nd edition game and the highest weapon skill is 35%. Why is that? The characters are 16 year olds going out into the wider world for the first time. If you want a game where the characters are older and more competent, then there are rules for additional years of training and experience.
It's not about railroading or GM's laughing at you. It's about representing the competency of characters in a setting. And guess what? In some games you play very ordinary people and in others you play gods.
And when you play people with a 30% skill in a defining area, then you learn to actual roleplay things out and concentrate on the fiction rather than the system to hand you victory. The referee will describe the situation and you can ask questions and describe what you do and if you are smart about it, then you won't just be in a situation where you fight and fight until your 30% sword skill gets you killed.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732592In my experience, which is the only way I can talk about something that is not studied, the sorts of game designers and game masters who want to run a game where a PC starts with a 30% in a defining skill want to run that game because they like the low odds of success either because it is a built in railroad they can count on, or because they think it is funny.
Show us on the doll where percentile dice touched your character in a bad way.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732777Trust me, rec softball doesn't make one an expert.
Clearly.
Why is it so fucking hard to say, 'Yeah, y'know that thing I said? Turns out I was talking out of my ass,' exactly? What is to be gained by fighting knowledge?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732811Clearly.
Why is it so fucking hard to say, 'Yeah, y'know that thing I said? Turns out I was talking out of my ass,' exactly? What is to be gained by fighting knowledge?
Actually I did defer to your objections, but you wouldn't hear it because your only reason for entering the thread in the first place was a monkey-brain desire to knock the "know-it-all" down a notch or two. After your rude entrance you were committed to being a douchbag all the way.
Quote from: NathanIW;732789And when you play people with a 30% skill in a defining area, then you learn to actual roleplay things out and concentrate on the fiction rather than the system to hand you victory. The referee will describe the situation and you can ask questions and describe what you do and if you are smart about it, then you won't just be in a situation where you fight and fight until your 30% sword skill gets you killed.
This.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732838After your rude entrance you were committed to being a douchbag all the way.
Your butthurt is noted.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732860Your butthurt is noted.
You were wrong about what happened and I corrected you. I couldn't give two shits about your opinion of me.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732806Show us on the doll where percentile dice touched your character in a bad way.
Someone asked why people hate % dice. I'm explaining.
When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.
Quote from: NathanIW;732789Umm... no.
There's this approach to RPGs where the referee sets up the situation and then everyone playing discovers what happens when the players go through the scenario. d100 roll under systems were born in the crucible of old school gaming where even the idea of railroading makes no sense whatsoever.
If you end up with 30% in what you consider to be a defining characteristic it's because that's the chance to succeed that character has. For example, I'm running a Runequest 2nd edition game and the highest weapon skill is 35%. Why is that? The characters are 16 year olds going out into the wider world for the first time. If you want a game where the characters are older and more competent, then there are rules for additional years of training and experience.
It's not about railroading or GM's laughing at you. It's about representing the competency of characters in a setting. And guess what? In some games you play very ordinary people and in others you play gods.
And when you play people with a 30% skill in a defining area, then you learn to actual roleplay things out and concentrate on the fiction rather than the system to hand you victory. The referee will describe the situation and you can ask questions and describe what you do and if you are smart about it, then you won't just be in a situation where you fight and fight until your 30% sword skill gets you killed.
That sounds like something that someone trying to sell a d100 system would say. That's a nice story but it isn't what happens.
In fact, victory is handed to you much easier in a low success game. All you have to do is guess the path of least resistance the GM was forced to spread out on the table and then listen to his NPCs talk.
If the plot was written into the GM's notes that "oh this is a sandbox but they can choose to fight and die or talk and live," because the GM knows there is no scenario where a fight can turn out ok due to the low chance of success, he is forced to write clear talking scenarios or his game is a piece of shit everyone will tire of in a few sessions. No one likes infinite chains of losing scenarios because they are focusing on story.
If the player can make a die roll even a little more than half the time in bad situations, and often in good situations, then there might be some point in working through different forward moving conditions, talking about paths of success, deciding who to go after and so on and on.
d100 = Fight or Talk, Fight and Die, Talk and Fail = Listen to the GM's Story
dChanceofSuccess = GM doesn't know what is going to happen = complexity
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732892When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732893In fact, victory is handed to you much easier in a low success game. All you have to do is guess the path of least resistance the GM was forced to spread out on the table and then listen to his NPCs talk.
If the plot was written into the GM's notes that "oh this is a sandbox but they can choose to fight and die or talk and live," because the GM knows there is no scenario where a fight can turn out ok due to the low chance of success, he is forced to write clear talking scenarios or his game is a piece of shit everyone will tire of in a few sessions. No one likes infinite chains of losing scenarios because they are focusing on story.
If the player can make a die roll even a little more than half the time in bad situations, and often in good situations, then there might be some point in working through different forward moving conditions, talking about paths of success, deciding who to go after and so on and on.
d100 = Fight or Talk, Fight and Die, Talk and Fail = Listen to the GM's Story
dChanceofSuccess = GM doesn't know what is going to happen = complexity
(http://www.hostedmoodily.com/imageupload/upload/2013/08/05/20130805181443-42ad39e5.gif)
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732892Someone asked why people hate % dice. I'm explaining.
When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.
No.
Assholes are assholes. Don't play with assholes. There, wasn't that easy?
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732893That sounds like something that someone trying to sell a d100 system would say. That's a nice story but it isn't what happens.
In fact, victory is handed to you much easier in a low success game. All you have to do is guess the path of least resistance the GM was forced to spread out on the table and then listen to his NPCs talk.
If the plot was written into the GM's notes that "oh this is a sandbox but they can choose to fight and die or talk and live," because the GM knows there is no scenario where a fight can turn out ok due to the low chance of success, he is forced to write clear talking scenarios or his game is a piece of shit everyone will tire of in a few sessions. No one likes infinite chains of losing scenarios because they are focusing on story.
If the player can make a die roll even a little more than half the time in bad situations, and often in good situations, then there might be some point in working through different forward moving conditions, talking about paths of success, deciding who to go after and so on and on.
d100 = Fight or Talk, Fight and Die, Talk and Fail = Listen to the GM's Story
dChanceofSuccess = GM doesn't know what is going to happen = complexity
Pssst. A first level fighter in D&D has a 20% chance to hit plate armor and shield.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732892Someone asked why people hate % dice. I'm explaining.
When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.
Does not compute. What matters is WHEN you are going to ask for a roll, under which precise circumstances, not that you have 1/3 theoretical chance to succeed on a roll.
If you only roll once every five game sessions in order to survive the sight of Cthulhu, then those are pretty good odds. If you roll every time you climb a ladder, talk to someone, and/or drive your Model T down to the library, then these are terrible odds.
The key to running such a system competently is to know when to ask for a roll (generally, somewhere between the two extremes outlined in the previous paragraph: under stress, or when the consequences of success or failure provide an input the game can build on either way), not in assuming everyone runs the game the same and making its rules a closed model.
Or if you prefer the short version...
Quote from: Old Geezer;732899No.
Assholes are assholes. Don't play with assholes. There, wasn't that easy?
This, basically.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732901Pssst. A first level fighter in D&D has a 20% chance to hit plate armor and shield.
A first level fighter in a modern version of the system that has been worked on recently, like Pathfinder, can't afford plate mail. In fact, he will probably be 3rd or 4th by the time he has it.
Secondly, this problem can be seen and negotiated. If you see a guy in plate, you know he has some sort of background that permitted it (ie his level or noble birth) in either case, there are warning signs.
Thirdly, that NPC isn't a fair match for a first level character and will probably be fighting the whole group if you pay any attention to the APL vs. CR rules in the case of the GM forcing an unavoidable fight, or can be avoided in a sandbox.
Four, in PF that character in plate could PROBABLY be 4th level and still almost automatically fail to something else in the party like a first level sorcerer with sleep.
Fifth, that isn't the same thing as a first level character having a sub 1/3 chance against a naked goblin half his own size, where no story or description elements identify a fair or good prospect fight.
Finally - in a modern version of the game, not something written by Gary Gygax in one sitting without an editor or plagiarized from him, the GM won't be able to count on the plate armor guy needing to be avoided by a first level party unless their are gross and clearly announced descriptive elements, with the exception of one or two mary sue wondering samurai characters he can get away with over the course of a whole campaign.
Quote from: Benoist;732902Does not compute. What matters is WHEN you are going to ask for a roll, under which precise circumstances, not that you have 1/3 theoretical chance to succeed on a roll.
If you only roll once every five game sessions in order to survive the sight of Cthulhu, then those are pretty good odds. If you roll every time you climb a ladder, talk to someone, and/or drive your Model T down to the library, then these are terrible odds.
The key to running such a system competently is to know when to ask for a roll (generally: under stress, or when the consequences of success or failure provide an input the game can build on either way), not in assuming everyone runs the game the same and making it a closed model.
I agree that that is the better way to play the game. I have not ever seen it played that way. People who want to run a game where players have freedom of action could run anything. It is the people who are attracted to the low odds that choose to run those games, and then they take advantage of them.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732903A first level fighter in a modern version of the system that has been worked on recently, like Pathfinder, can't afford plate mail. In fact, he will probably be 3rd or 4th by the time he has it.
Secondly, this problem can be seen and negotiated. If you see a guy in plate, you know he has some sort of background that permitted it (ie his level or noble birth) in either case, there are warning signs.
Thirdly, that NPC isn't a fair match for a first level character and will probably be fighting the whole group if you pay any attention to the APL vs. CR rules in the case of the GM forcing an unavoidable fight, or can be avoided in a sandbox.
Four, in PF that character in plate could PROBABLY be 4th level and still almost automatically fail to something else in the party like a first level sorcerer with sleep.
Fifth, that isn't the same thing as a first level character having a sub 1/3 chance against a naked goblin half his own size, where no story or description elements identify a fair or good prospect fight.
Finally - in a modern version of the game, not something written by Gary Gygax in one sitting without an editor or plagiarized from him, the GM won't be able to count on the plate armor guy needing to be avoided by a first level party unless their are gross and clearly announced descriptive elements, with the exception of one or two mary sue wondering samurai characters he can get away with over the course of a whole campaign.
Yeah, at this point you're just whining and making up reasons why you win, so it's time for you to tongue my pee hole.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732907Yeah, at this point you're just whining and making up reasons why you win, so it's time for you to tongue my pee hole.
Sorry, I know that was a lot to follow.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732903A first level fighter in a modern version of the system that has been worked on recently, like Pathfinder, can't afford plate mail. In fact, he will probably be 3rd or 4th by the time he has it.
Or he's a 0 level squire passing himself off as a knight.
Or he's a 1-6 hit points brigand who stole the armor out of the back of a wagon at a fair.
Or he's the 2nd level fighter henchman of a mid-level magic-user.
There are more things in heaven and earth, ForumScavenger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732910There are more things in heaven and earth, ForumScavenger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
* Orson Welles doing a slow clap *
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732910Or he's a 0 level squire passing himself off as a knight.
Should be clear by observation. Can he work the armor?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732910Or he's a 1-6 hit points brigand who stole the armor out of the back of a wagon at a fair.
Should be clear by observation. Can he work the armor?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732910Or he's the 2nd level fighter henchman of a mid-level magic-user.
Good angle. Unless there is some kind of story arc you are following, this shouldn't be stumbled across a lot. Is the GM following any kind of wealth by level for his NPCs? If so, this is a good sign that the wizard will be weak when you get to him. If not, at least the loot is great vs. the effort taking it. Then, when you hit mid level, your PC wizard should be able to shit thousands of gold coins out of the void for his hirelings.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732910There are more things in heaven and earth, ForumScavenger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Not by much.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732892When a GM picks up a book or a designer picks up a pen and they see, "the player will succeed 1/3 of the time," and they think, "yes, this is the system for me," they are going to act like assholes when they run the game.
lolwut? This doesn't make any sense. I think RPGs might not be about what you think they are. I think you might be trapped in some sort of late 90s anti-railroad player agency pro-story mentality that has nothing to do with how the hobby started or the activities that make up the core of it.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732893That sounds like something that someone trying to sell a d100 system would say. That's a nice story but it isn't what happens.
Actually it is. These d100 systems have been around for 35 years. That's an incredible amount of functional and enjoyable play, even if you don't get how to approach them.
QuoteIn fact, victory is handed to you much easier in a low success game. All you have to do is guess the path of least resistance the GM was forced to spread out on the table and then listen to his NPCs talk.
Ugh. It's not about the easiest path to victory. You seem to be labouring under the idea that if the character can succeed more often than you as a player will somehow "win" more.
QuoteIf the plot was written into the GM's notes that "oh this is a sandbox
If you have a plot, you do not have a sandbox. In a sandbox the plot emerges from play.
Quote...he is forced to write clear talking scenarios or his game is a piece of shit everyone will tire of in a few sessions. No one likes infinite chains of losing scenarios because they are focusing on story.
Concentrating on story is for chumps. The referee should create interesting situations and let the players explore them as they see fit and fairly adjudicate their actions.
As for "tire of in a few sessions" you do realize that these games where you play relatively normal people who are not action movie heroes or fantasy super heroes are some of the most enduring? Call of Cthulhu, for example, has been continuously in print for 32 years and has had an incredible amount of material published for it.
Quoted100 = Fight or Talk, Fight and Die, Talk and Fail = Listen to the GM's Story
dChanceofSuccess = GM doesn't know what is going to happen = complexity
Are you aware that any chance of success in statistics is expressed as a fraction, ratio or percentage right?
Quote from: NathanIW;732916Are you aware that any chance of success in statistics is expressed as a fraction, ratio or percentage right?
Hush, you and your "not having your head stuffed completely up your ass".
Nathan, my opinion on the topic is clear from my posts. Someone asked why people don't like %dice mechanics. I am explaining it.
I'm not going to delve into some weird conversation about late 90's player agency when I would have to start by explaining the difference in how statistics are spoken about between math majors and how they are used in ordinary conversation when conveying a clear point anyone who isn't autistic or asshole could follow.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732903...can't afford plate mail ...see a guy in plate
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. His point had nothing to do with platemail in of itself.
QuoteFifth, that isn't the same thing as a first level character having a sub 1/3 chance against a naked goblin half his own size, where no story or description elements identify a fair or good prospect fight.
When you look at your character sheet and see a 30% attack stat, that should be your clue right there that you are not a combat god or a super hero warrior like you play in Pathfinder. You are playing a different type of character, so I'd suggest putting on big boy pants and actually roleplaying your character rather than complaining about what he's not.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732919Nathan, my opinion on the topic is clear from my posts. Someone asked why people don't like %dice mechanics. I am explaining it.
And people are trying to point out that you're reasons are not logically connected to the claims you are making. You completely missed all the points about statistics, for example.
dChanceOfSuccess = d100 <-- think about it
QuoteI'm not going to delve into some weird conversation about late 90's player agency
You're the one who brought up railroading, asshole GMs, concentration on story and the like, not me.
I guess my point is that you don't know if you like d100 roll under systems or not because you don't seem to have any idea what they actually are. A bad GM touched you in a bad place with one of these systems and you think that's what they are all about.
Quote from: NathanIW;732920I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. His point had nothing to do with platemail in of itself.
When you look at your character sheet and see a 30% attack stat, that should be your clue right there that you are not a combat god or a super hero warrior like you play in Pathfinder. You are playing a different type of character, so I'd suggest putting on big boy pants and actually roleplaying your character rather than complaining about what he's not.
I could put on my big boy panties and roll along through the GMs crumby game, but I would instead do anything else, because that sort of game isn't fun.
When the only avenue of action I can take is the no die roll walk in the woods laid out by the GM as the only available course, I'd rather read a book.
Talk 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.
I put on my big boy pants to go to work, not to hike through a boring afternoon of boring one direction gaming.
Quote from: NathanIW;732922I guess my point is that you don't know if you like d100 roll under systems or not because you don't seem to have any idea what they actually are. A bad GM touched you in a bad place with one of these systems and you think that's what they are all about.
D100 systems suck because the nerds that run and play them get butt hurt when they get told the first thing to drop out of their pen is bad, so they can't fix it.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732924When the only avenue of action I can take is the no die roll walk in the woods laid out by the GM as the only available course, I'd rather read a book.
So you never have actually played a d100 roll under game because they are simply not like that.
QuoteI put on my big boy pants to go to work, not to hike through a boring afternoon of boring one direction gaming.
Your next step is to say to yourself: "Maybe I'm not very experienced with these games and I've got it wrong and these people who have been playing these games successfully for over three decades might actually know how the game works in actual play while I am completely ignorant."
The fact that you are still stuck on "one direction" and "only avenue of action" shows you have absolutely no clue about how to actually run or play games like Call of Cthulhu, WFRP1/2, RuneQuest, Palladium or any other d100 roll under game.
As I said before, you think you know why you don't like them, but you've shown that you don't even have an idea of what they actually are. You hate a figment of your imagination rather than a real approach to gaming that people actually do.
Might I suggest going and listening to some actual play podcasts using d100 roll under? You might learn something about how they actually work rather than the idea you have in your head that's completely divorced from reality.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732915Not by much.
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd11/kidcharliemane/bth_bullshit-meter-011.gif)
Quote from: NathanIW;732927So you never have actually played a d100 roll under game because they are 100% not like that.
Your next step is to say to yourself: "Maybe I'm not very experienced with these games and I've got it wrong and these people who have been playing these games successfully for over three decades might actually know how the game works in actual play while I am completely ignorant."
The fact that you are still stuck on "one direction" and "only avenue of action" shows you have absolutely no clue about how to actually run or play games like Call of Cthulhu, WFRP1/2, RuneQuest, Palladium or any other d100 roll under game.
As I said before, you think you know why you don't like them, but you've shown that you don't even have an idea of what they actually are. You hate a figment of your imagination rather than a real approach to gaming that people actually do.
Or an asshole referee, to be honest. But as I said before, assholes will be assholes no matter what kind of dice they're rolling.
Nightbane, 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.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732903Thirdly, that NPC isn't a fair match for a first level character and will probably be fighting the whole group if you pay any attention to the APL vs. CR rules in the case of the GM forcing an unavoidable fight, or can be avoided in a sandbox.
There's no rule in D&D that says a first level NPC can't or shouldn't have plate.
QuoteFifth, that isn't the same thing as a first level character having a sub 1/3 chance against a naked goblin half his own size, where no story or description elements identify a fair or good prospect fight.
So lets take other staple 1st level D&D encounters such as Hobgoblins (35% chance to hit), Giant Fire Beetles (30% chance to hit) or Piercers (25%).
So sorry, I don't see what you're basing your opinions on at all.
All of the earliest (and quite frankly the best selling) RPGs started characters out with low to mediocre skills. Its not a flaw, its a feature.
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.
Huh? Do you mean
genre? Immigrate with a percentile roll? I don't understand any of that paragraph.
Quote from: K Peterson;732934Huh? Do you mean genre? Immigrate with a percentile roll? I don't understand any of that paragraph.
Sorry, I'm eating lunch and typing on an iPhone.
Quote from: Old Geezer;732930Or an asshole referee, to be honest. But as I said before, assholes will be assholes no matter what kind of dice they're rolling.
I think it's probably more likely that someone more familiar with Pathfinder or other high-success/high-powered characters ran the game in Pathfinder fantasy super hero mode and everyone failed and died. Just like when 3.x/PF players play basic D&D for the first time and all die in the first fight they rush right into. If the player's don't get the basics of how the game works, it's even worse when the referee doesn't.
Though it simply could be an asshole referee. In either case though, we have someone evaluating a game that uses a certain mechanic when they're not operating the system properly. Either by running it with a modern approach or running it as part of being an asshole. Neither of these situations will give someone an accurate picture of *any* game.
Quote from: NathanIW;732922I guess my point is that you don't know if you like d100 roll under systems or not because you don't seem to have any idea what they actually are. A bad GM touched you in a bad place with one of these systems and you think that's what they are all about.
I've gotta agree. This counter-d100 argument seems like either:
- trolling to rile up the Rpgsite natives
- one bad gaming experience with a GM who didn't know how to run d100 games
- or, general mis-assumptions about how d100 games are played.
Quote from: K Peterson;732938I've gotta agree. This counter-d100 argument seems like either:
- trolling to rile up the Rpgsite natives
- one bad gaming experience with a GM who didn't know how to run d100 games
- or, general mis-assumptions about how d100 games are played.
No, no, I think I'm starting to get FS' point - clearly a game in which you need to roll a 16 or better to hit on d20 is much better and more fair to the players than a game in which you need to roll 25 or less on d%.
I can't understand why I didn't see this sooner.
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.
I'm going to assume you mean to say that emulating the genre of cosmic horror is one that is particularly not compatible with a percentile roll system.
This may come as a shock, but Call of Cthulhu play isn't about producing a genre story through play. It is not about story or plot creation where you make Lovecraftian fiction through play. It's about having a traditional RPG investigation set in the backdrop of the Cthulhu Mythos. Playing an investigation RPG adventure, not the story or plot or genre emulation.
If you want a game meant to produce genre fiction through play, I would suggest Trail of Cthulhu over Call of Cthulhu (even if ToC turned out to be not my cup of tea). If you were to compare and contrast the two games in actual play, you might start to get an insight into how a d100 roll under system produces successful play and how it differs from what you think it is about.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;732940No, no, I think I'm starting to get FS' point - clearly a game in which you need to roll a 16 or better to hit on d20 is much better and more fair to the players than a game in which you need to roll 25 or less on d%.
I can't understand why I didn't see this sooner.
It's all so simple! I don't know why I didn't see it sooner. And needing the 16 on a d20 rather than 25 or less on a d100 means that there's no railroading! We won't be trappd in a "talk or fail" railroad any more thanks to the dice we are using.
It's all so clear now. :p
I'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?
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..?
(http://www.ripcitybadboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/mind-blown-2.gif)
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.
(http://www.cutecatgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/facepalm.gif)
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?
Quote from: 3rik;733079While 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.
I don't know if it was a design goal, but the investigation system having no chance whatsoever of failing anything to do with investigation means that the players will get all the info the scenario designer wants them to have and then have the opportunity to spend points to get more. When you combine this with how scenarios are organized you can reliably produce whatever story structure you want.
The scenarios are laid out with scene framing and organized by scene like a play or story that changes locations.
The times I've run it, it works, but rarely if ever does game play proceed in any other way than outlined in the scenarios scene-by-scene. When you get the core clue and it obviously leads to going to a specific location or talking to a specific person, people tend to do that.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a story game rather than a role playing game as the players do indeed play their characters and describe what they do and you use the system to determine how what they describe turns out. There's not a lot in the way of plot or story effecting mechanics and even points that are spent to get further information are a representation of their competency as investigators.
EDIT: A friend of mine runs a weekly Trail game and I sent him a message asking if the game ever goes off of the scene-by-scene framework, and he answered back that it hasn't yet and he's been running it since the game came out. The guaranteed success of the system and the way clues create leads makes the scene by scene progression pretty obvious. The group basically works through it like a flow chart.
Trail is sort of a perfect illustration of how ForumScavenger has it completely backwards. In Call of Cthulhu, you very likely will not succeed regularly and it produces play where the result is unknown and variable and the group can go about things in whatever way they want. In Trail of Cthulhu, you have a very high chance of success and play pretty much proceeds down the obvious path. So obvious that the published scenarios literally have it spelled out "core clue scene 1" "core clue scene 2" "threat scene 1" and so on.
For me, part of the fun of Call of Cthulhu is not getting all the information and going into a situation unprepared and trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Quote from: 3rik;733079(http://www.cutecatgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/facepalm.gif)
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.
It certainly provides a mechanical framework more designed for such, yes - especially the Drive mechanic, which I am very wary of.
Quote from: NathanIW;733094I don't know if it was a design goal, but the investigation system having no chance whatsoever of failing anything to do with investigation means that the players will get all the info the scenario designer wants them to have and then have the opportunity to spend points to get more. When you combine this with how scenarios are organized you can reliably produce whatever story structure you want.
The scenarios are laid out with scene framing and organized by scene like a play or story that changes locations.
The times I've run it, it works, but rarely if ever does game play proceed in any other way than outlined in the scenarios scene-by-scene. When you get the core clue and it obviously leads to going to a specific location or talking to a specific person, people tend to do that.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a story game rather than a role playing game as the players do indeed play their characters and describe what they do and you use the system to determine how what they describe turns out. There's not a lot in the way of plot or story effecting mechanics and even points that are spent to get further information are a representation of their competency as investigators.
EDIT: A friend of mine runs a weekly Trail game and I sent him a message asking if the game ever goes off of the scene-by-scene framework, and he answered back that it hasn't yet and he's been running it since the game came out. The guaranteed success of the system and the way clues create leads makes the scene by scene progression pretty obvious. The group basically works through it like a flow chart.
Trail is sort of a perfect illustration of how ForumScavenger has it completely backwards. In Call of Cthulhu, you very likely will not succeed regularly and it produces play where the result is unknown and variable and the group can go about things in whatever way they want. In Trail of Cthulhu, you have a very high chance of success and play pretty much proceeds down the obvious path. So obvious that the published scenarios literally have it spelled out "core clue scene 1" "core clue scene 2" "threat scene 1" and so on.
For me, part of the fun of Call of Cthulhu is not getting all the information and going into a situation unprepared and trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Odd - I've ran a lot of ToC (about 30 games?) and I haven't really used the scene framework (the one time I tried flashbacks, my players looked at me as if I started to smell of fish ;) ). So a lot depends on a GM and players.
All the BRP/percentile roll-over love in this thread, especially from people who's opinions I give a shit about, warms my black heart :D
Quote from: Rincewind1;733095Odd - I've ran a lot of ToC (about 30 games?) and I haven't really used the scene framework (the one time I tried flashbacks, my players looked at me as if I started to smell of fish ;) ). So a lot depends on a GM and players.
Were you designing your own scenarios? The Armitage Files and Bookhouds do not run as scene based as the other published stuff, but most of the other published scenarios are broken down into scene by scene right in the text.
I could totally see how if you just internalized the situation and stopped thinking about it in terms of scenes and just ran it without them, it would still work, but the default presentation seems to include them.
Quote from: NathanIW;733098Were you designing your own scenarios? The Armitage Files and Bookhouds do not run as scene based as the other published stuff, but most of the other published scenarios are broken down into scene by scene right in the text.
I could totally see how if you just internalized the situation and stopped thinking about it in terms of scenes and just ran it without them, it would still work, but the default presentation seems to include them.
I was designing my own as well as playing official ones (which I still highly recommend, as they are excellent adventures, especially if you want the more tragic Lovecraftian tales) - Dying of St. Margarete, Not so Quiet and In the Blood.
I highly prefer CoC to ToC (for a list of reasons I've spoken in the other thread, heh), but I think that some of ToC's advice is good and serves well for CoC games. As for the:
QuoteTrail is sort of a perfect illustration of how ForumScavenger has it completely backwards. In Call of Cthulhu, you very likely will not succeed regularly and it produces play where the result is unknown and variable and the group can go about things in whatever way they want. In Trail of Cthulhu, you have a very high chance of success and play pretty much proceeds down the obvious path. So obvious that the published scenarios literally have it spelled out "core clue scene 1" "core clue scene 2" "threat scene 1" and so on.
For me, part of the fun of Call of Cthulhu is not getting all the information and going into a situation unprepared and trying to make the best of a bad situation.
He has it backwards, but a similar situation is in ToC really - players can simply not find a certain clue, if they don't make a spend/enter a certain location/make a declaration. So both systems premium players thinking before relying on spends/rolls. My personal favourite system'd be a mix of ToC's Investigative Abilities with "General Abilities" being used with BRP's percentiles.
The core of Trail is that you don't fail to get the info you need, but yeah, if people did pass up actually engaging with the scene, they could miss an opportunity to get additional or further information.
I see the combination of not being able to fail at investigation and the scene structure of the modules to be indicative of the default approach of the game, but like the looser approach you're talking about a lot better.
Quote from: NathanIW;733098Were you designing your own scenarios? The Armitage Files and Bookhouds do not run as scene based as the other published stuff, but most of the other published scenarios are broken down into scene by scene right in the text.
That's something that actually turns me off about published ToC scenarios. I've purchased some in order to steal ideas for my CoC game, but I find that breaking things down into scenes makes reading the material much less enjoyable than the more traditional CoC adventure. It feels like the authors are chewing your food for you.
Quote from: Dimitrios;733103That's something that actually turns me off about published ToC scenarios. I've purchased some in order to steal ideas for my CoC game, but I find that breaking things down into scenes makes reading the material much less enjoyable than the more traditional CoC adventure. It feels like the authors are chewing your food for you.
A lot of other RPG publishers wouldn't dare to put their published stuff out in scene based format with the scenes already pre-set because of how impossible it would be to predict the outcomes of what the players do. Pelegrane can do it for ToC because the players will reliably succeed in getting all the core clues of the scenario. And if a core clue says that the Pemberton family is involved, they can safely write a scene at Pemberton Manor and know exactly what information the players will have and not have up to this point.
Imagine if someone wrote a Call of Cthulhu scenario and published it in the same format. It'd be a train wreck. It also does make for worse reading as it reads like the notes for a movie script rather than an RPG scenario. It's like a producer made some unfinished notes about the type of stuff that he wants in each scene in a movie. With RPG scenarios, what you really want is a presentation of the present situation and maybe how the NPCs plan on moving the situation forward if nothing stops them. That way you can read it, understand the whole situation and see it's potential. Far more interesting of a read that scene-by-scene movie script notes.
If anyone likes Trail and doesn't like the scene-by-scene preplanned approach, check out Bookhounds and Armitage Files. They're far more open ended, even if they still have scenes, but the keeper is supposed to generate them as needed rather than use pre planned ones all the time.
I gave Trail an honest go myself, but in the end the d100 roll under Cthulhu game won out. The chance for failure means that I as a referee get to play to see what happens along with everyone else.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732915Should be clear by observation. Can he work the armor?
Should be clear by observation. Can he work the armor?
Work the armor? What the fuck does that mean?
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732584People don't like the roll under mechanic because they are favored by game designers who want early characters to suck.
You are now the President of
Retard Nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tchD-G09J94).
QuoteA first level d20 character can sneak up to a guard, knife him, calm his horse, and ride off with it.
A starting DH character can trip over his own feet, drop a grenade, and kill himself trying to sneak up on an untrained grandmother.
Not everything goes according to plan? Oh noes!
Seriously though, even the most highly trained and talented people fuck up in humiliating fashion.
QuoteI think that most of the people who say they don't like roll under mechanics would like them just fine if their skills started out at 70% instead of 30%.
Because they're pussies who can't handle a challenge. They want the deck stacked in their favor.
QuoteI personally hate playing characters weaker than I am in real life.
So now you're going to explain how you can fight in hand-to-hand combat better than a veteran fighting man, right? Or how you can cast more than one 1st-level spell, yes? Or how you can climb sheer walls and...
Get the fuck outta here!
Quote from: Elfdart;733157Or how you can climb sheer walls and...
As an aside, it never fails me how people think it's easy to do stuff in a game based on complete ignorance, and climbing is an excellent example.
I've done rock climbing. It's 90% technique and 10% strength and endurance. Yet the average Joe who hasn't done it thinks it's easy. Put that average Joe on a wall and I bet they couldn't get 10 feet up the wall. Doesn't matter how strong you are, you're going to burn out your arms in about 2 minutes if that's what you're using to climb. You have to be
taught how to climb, and take a lot of practice to do it well. I imagine a lot of other things are the same way.
Basically, some gamers overrate their own abilities based on something they think is easy but have no actual real life experience to tell them they are full of shit.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;733165As an aside, it never fails me how people think it's easy to do stuff in a game based on complete ignorance, and climbing is an excellent example.
I've done rock climbing. It's 90% technique and 10% strength and endurance. Yet the average Joe who hasn't done it thinks it's easy. Put that average Joe on a wall and I bet they couldn't get 10 feet up the wall. Doesn't matter how strong you are, you're going to burn out your arms in about 2 minutes if that's what you're using to climb. You have to be taught how to climb, and take a lot of practice to do it well. I imagine a lot of other things are the same way.
Basically, some gamers overrate their own abilities based on something they think is easy but have no actual real life experience to tell them they are full of shit.
There's a Dilbert strip about that. "Anything I don't understand is easy."
"Redesign our entire network for worldwide connectivity and electronic billing -- twenty minutes."
Quote from: Old Geezer;733182There's a Dilbert strip about that. "Anything I don't understand is easy."
"Redesign our entire network for worldwide connectivity and electronic billing -- twenty minutes."
Get that in the art side of game design too. Had one guy who thought that 200 pieces of colour painting art from one artist was going to be done in a months time.
We tried to be gentle explaining how it works...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u4kiwjr1Rlw/UMognEX-M-I/AAAAAAAAD6k/Tlf9KjpvbBo/s1600/knock-knock.gif)
Quote from: Benoist;733069then you probably are a railroading griefing sadist of a DM. Which doesn't mean you -you- of course. *wink wink*
Well, i
did run Dragonlance, the whole 12 modules...
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;733231Well, i did run Dragonlance, the whole 12 modules...
Serious question: How was that?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;733252Serious question: How was that?
Sure, open a new thread, as the answer would have nothing to do with what I think of roll under %.
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;732264QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;733668RPGs (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.
What.
Quote from: Old One Eye;733520Stars 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.
It's just the impression I get. I haven't seen any statistics.
Quote from: Rincewind1;733675What.
I was going to quote the Dude, but you got it covered.
Quote from: Rincewind1;733675What.
How good you are: Roll under the % value
How difficult the task is: take a penalty.
Super awkward, doncha know.
Quote from: Rincewind1;733675What.
I thought this was obvious. In a % system you have say "Climbing 30%", if climbing a stone wall is supposed harder than climbing a rope then that needs to be handled by applying some sort of modifier to your roll. In other systems you would just have "climbing +5" or "Climbing dice pool 5" and things that are harder to climb would be handled be having a higher target number or requiring more successes, which is much less awkward at the table.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;733684I thought this was obvious. In a % system you have say "Climbing 30%", if climbing a stone wall is supposed harder than climbing a rope then that needs to be handled by applying some sort of modifier to your roll. In other systems you would just have "climbing +5" or "Climbing dice pool 5" and things that are harder to climb would be handled be having a higher target number or requiring more successes, which is much less awkward at the table.
Did you require parental oversight when you joined this forum? I just want to know what level of maths I'm talking about, as I don't want to be mean to a primary school child.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;733684I thought this was obvious. In a % system you have say "Climbing 30%", if climbing a stone wall is supposed harder than climbing a rope then that needs to be handled by applying some sort of modifier to your roll. In other systems you would just have "climbing +5" or "Climbing dice pool 5" and things that are harder to climb would be handled be having a higher target number or requiring more successes, which is much less awkward at the table.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/what.gif)
Quote from: gamerGoyf;733684I thought this was obvious. In a % system you have say "Climbing 30%", if climbing a stone wall is supposed harder than climbing a rope then that needs to be handled by applying some sort of modifier to your roll. In other systems you would just have "climbing +5" or "Climbing dice pool 5" and things that are harder to climb would be handled be having a higher target number or requiring more successes, which is much less awkward at the table.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oh-really-now.gif)
Aaaaaand I see the delegate from Planet Moonbat has weighed in.
I doubt gG ever played a BRP game in his life.
You 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.
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.e.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-_dStEZJLa4/TQq1iflQzHI/AAAAAAAAAPE/D45yVu7kE5w/s1600/trololo-lolo-trololo.jpg) (http://trololololololololololo.com/)
Pretty much.
Anyone who describes the following:
"Your chance to succeed is a % value. Just roll the dice and if you get under, you succeed. Don't even worry about any modifiers. Easy. In the very rare scenario where something happens that's extra hard or easy? I'll tell you what penalty to use. But that's the only time you need to worry about math; most times you don't."
as "super awkward" is either not very intelligent, or they are trolling on purpose.
Switching FROM THAC0? Bah. I never USED THAC0.
Lookup chart all the way. I find it easier.
Hell, when I was playing a lot of CHAMPIONS and Fantasy Hero, I even made up a hit chart for OCV vs DCV.
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'll have you known I wear a clean shave. Also, when did percentile systems adopt THACO or BAB?
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.
Quote from: MatteoN;733775AND 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".
Yup.
Take the whole 'subtraction is harder than addition' thing.
This gets cited constantly as if it's simply established fact, but there is virtually zero evidence that this is actually the case.
The REAL issue is that THEY find it harder, probably because what the evidence does show is that whatever you're taught first is slightly easier, and most American curriculum starts kids out learning addition first.
But even that's not universal. I've never found it any harder than anything else. You wanna make an argument that long division is harder, I'll probably consider it. Otherwise, all rattling off that detail tells me is what the arguer finds easier, and is trying to appeal to some imagined universal principle to bolster his argument.
Quote from: ForumScavenger;732919Nathan, my opinion on the topic is clear from my posts. Someone asked why people don't like %dice mechanics. I am explaining it.
But, you are not explaining that, you are explaining why people dislike low-level characters.
Most D100 games have a Previous Experience generation that allows you to generate a PC that is at various levels, from beginner to veteran or hero.
I have played a First Level Magic User in D&D with 4 Hit Points and a Magic Missile and Spiderclimb spell. He was absolutely useless, except when climbing around. Fortunately, the first scenario was based on a ship, so he could climb around the rigging for a while, but put him in combat and he could fire one shot and maybe hurt a goblin, or could fight and almost certainly die.
So, low level characters is not a D100 problem, at all.
Quote from: JeremyR;733777Buck 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?
If only there were a simpler way of expressing that - divide by four, for example.
(Or buy a cheap calculator from the pound shop, and put it on the table during games.)
Quote from: gamerGoyf;733668Honestly 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.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;733668RPGs (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.
I wonder if you have actually played with a D100 system.
This is exactly what D100 systems are very good at.
How good you are is represented by the skill - low skill means you are not very good at the job, high skill means you are good at the job.
How hard the task is can be represented by a modifier to the skill, either as a multiplier/divisor or by adding/subtracting a bonus/penalty. The bigger the penalty, the harder the task.
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. 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.
Are you just trying to be very theoretical here? You are trying to say that using the same terminology for roll-under and roll-over systems is confusing.
Sure, if I used a Rolemaster mechanic in BRP/RQ then it would be confusing and vice versa.
However, all D100 games state how the skills are used.
In RQ/BRP/Legend/OpenQuest-style games, having a +20% bonus to a skill increases the change of succeeding by 20, and having a -20% pena,lty means subtract 20 from your skill. Purists may say that +20% might mean "Add on fifth of the skill", but the convention means something different.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;733732If 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.
That is exactly how many D100 skills work.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;733732All of these issues are relatively minor, but taken together, they detract from the mechanic.
And to me they enhance the mechanic.
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.
Since 1985, most D100 systems have used a scale of 1% increments. I am sure that if we listed out all the D100 games then that would be the case.
Quote from: soltakss;733788I wonder if you have actually played with a D100 system.
This is exactly what D100 systems are very good at.
How good you are is represented by the skill - low skill means you are not very good at the job, high skill means you are good at the job.
How hard the task is can be represented by a modifier to the skill, either as a multiplier/divisor or by adding/subtracting a bonus/penalty. The bigger the penalty, the harder the task.
UM. yes to this. +1.
It's a sad day when gamers raised on d20 can't grasp roll-under.
Quote from: The Butcher;733809It's a sad day when gamers raised on d20 can't grasp roll-under.
My eyes are bleeding reading this thread.
Quote from: J Arcane;733784But even that's not universal. I've never found it any harder than anything else. You wanna make an argument that long division is harder, I'll probably consider it. Otherwise, all rattling off that detail tells me is what the arguer finds easier, and is trying to appeal to some imagined universal principle to bolster his argument.
Yeah. I play with a bunch of folks who can calculate THAC0 faster than they can look it up on a table.
Me, when I try to make even a simple calculation, I go "uhhhh..." and there's about a five second delay while I activate my brain's arithmetic processing unit. In that amount of time I can look something up on a table so it's faster than me.
Most people don't appear to have that brief delay while their brain-meats switch to arithmetic mode.
When someone says 'this way is harder', it doesn't mean 'it's too hard for me and I need to go back to first grade!'.
If 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.
d100 against TN of (skill +/- modifiers) means you have variables on both sides of the equations.
How much harder is that? It depends on the person.
When designing our homebrew, we frequently invoke the 'Mary Principle'. One of the main designers is involved in advanced math for his career; two of us are pretty decent with numbers. I, personally, am really good at adding double-digit numbers together (17+35, for instance). Mary has trouble with that. It takes her longer than it takes me. If we have too many operations, she really struggles. She's not the only one, but she usually struggles the most.
When we're designing a system, we don't design it based on what functions we can do. We try to design for the 'lowest common denominator' - people who aren't good at math.
I don't think that 'good at math' needs to be a requirement in order to enjoy roleplaying games. Considering how much more I value imaginative play than number-crunching, I think focusing on making the math easy and intuitive is time well-spent.
I certainly don't spend time deriding folks who really do struggle with the math. I know lots of intelligent people that suffer from 'innumeracy'.
If someone uses more complicated math when less complicated math is available, they ought to have a compelling reason regarding flavor reasons. But that doesn't mean I advocate everything on a d20+modifiers.
For example, in Deatwatch (roll under), I suggest adding your skill to your d100 roll against a fixed target of 100. I suggest applying 'circumstantial modifiers' to the die roll, rather than the TN. I like to keep all operations on one side of the equation; most people intuitively grok that better.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;733820When someone says 'this way is harder', it doesn't mean 'it's too hard for me and I need to go back to first grade!'.
.
He didn't say, "this way is harder." He said, "this way is super awkward." That's a pretty significant difference. The second clearly implies that he has difficulty figuring it out.
And you agreed with it, so you can't blame people for making the comments they have made.
@ deadDMwalking: I think you're forgetting that in "roll and add" systems the target number too is a variable, so variables are on both sides of the equation both in "roll under" and in "roll and add" systems. It couldn't be otherwise, since the systems are functionally equivalent.
If you want a system with very easy maths, try roll under with step dice: roll under skill (rated 1 to 5) with a d6, d8, d10, d12 etc. depending on the difficulty. All maths required is comparison of result with rating and of result with result (highest under skill wins).
Quote from: Benoist;733813My eyes are bleeding reading this thread.
(http://notesfromachair.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/tumblr_lkmq9wgpmw1qb84lwo1_500.gif)
Quote from: JeremyR;733777Buck Rogers used a roll under d100% system, but it did difficulty by multiplication.
Easy 2x
Average 1x
Difficult 1/2
Impossible 1/4
A common (house) ruling in d100 roll-under games.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;733820d100 against TN of (skill +/- modifiers) means you have variables on both sides of the equations.
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).
Quote from: MatteoN;733824If you want a system with very easy maths, try roll under with step dice: roll under skill (rated 1 to 5) with a d6, d8, d10, d12 etc. depending on the difficulty. All maths required is comparison of result with rating and of result with result (highest under skill wins).
Tales from the Floating Vagabond had a pretty sweet system. Is there a game with a serious take using it?
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 20Here'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.
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).
(http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/c/c9/ICE_-_Lord_of_the_Rings_Adventure_Game_%28Boxed_Set%29.jpg/225px-ICE_-_Lord_of_the_Rings_Adventure_Game_%28Boxed_Set%29.jpg)
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).
(http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/c/c9/ICE_-_Lord_of_the_Rings_Adventure_Game_%28Boxed_Set%29.jpg/225px-ICE_-_Lord_of_the_Rings_Adventure_Game_%28Boxed_Set%29.jpg)
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. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/passfail.html)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;734055Yup. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/passfail.html)
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).
(http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/c/c9/ICE_-_Lord_of_the_Rings_Adventure_Game_%28Boxed_Set%29.jpg/225px-ICE_-_Lord_of_the_Rings_Adventure_Game_%28Boxed_Set%29.jpg)
Some of their later Middle-earth modules were triple-statted for MERP, RM, and LotR.
Oh man, I remember that boxed set.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;734187bou 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.
Well, that could be said of any mechanic. d20 is not universally popular. I personally do not like counting successes on dice pools.
Doesn't logic dictate that %d mechanics are easy to understand becuase everyone knows what a 35% chance of doing something is.
However, if your system requires something beyond a simple pass/fail then its harder to introduce without aditional sums. So a "critical sucess is 10% of your base chance so 35% base => 4% critical".
Whereas other systems that use different dice option, like exploding dice or dice pools primarily, give you other methods to count such things that require less sums at the table. So counting the number of 10s to work out criticals is less effort than working out threshold levels especially multiple threshold levels.
Thus -
%d fine for pass/fail.
More effort for granular levels of sucess => lots of %d systems that want granular sucess using lookup tables. eg James Bond 007 which is (skill x difficulty) vs %d on a look up table to yeild a 1-4 level of sucess, would be very tedious to do this manually.
There may also be a natural push back on roll low systems as a wider category.
Quote from: jibbajibba;734195However, if your system requires something beyond a simple pass/fail then its harder to introduce without aditional sums. So a "critical sucess is 10% of your base chance so 35% base => 4% critical".
Whereas other systems that use different dice option, like exploding dice or dice pools primarily, give you other methods to count such things that require less sums at the table. So counting the number of 10s to work out criticals is less effort than working out threshold levels especially multiple threshold levels.
I doubt the real cost of granular success in d% is greater than either counting increments of success above TN, or counting dice pool successes. The first two both require mathematical processing, the last one swaps the processing for time spend hunting and pecking for successes--something that's complicated even further the more states each die can have (botch on a 1, fail, pass, critical on a 10; now how do 10s interact with 1s? etc.)
Quote from: smiorgan;734213I doubt the real cost of granular success in d% is greater than either counting increments of success above TN, or counting dice pool successes. The first two both require mathematical processing, the last one swaps the processing for time spend hunting and pecking for successes--something that's complicated even further the more states each die can have (botch on a 1, fail, pass, critical on a 10; now how do 10s interact with 1s? etc.)
In my anecdotal experience counting 10s or how many 4 steps over the target number I rolled on my exploding dice is less effort than deviding my eventual target number into quadriles or deciles or whatever. And of course you can subdivide 1% to get that 1 in a million chance. In my system using 2d10 v target the other day a PC with 2 advatages managed to roll a natural 20 (4d10 drop highest 2) which was a 1:10,000 chance.
However at this point we get back into the previous 450 posts as relative ease of sums is obviously a subjective thing so I have no way to tell what you or anyone else finds easier.
I don't even understand how this thread got this convoluted.
The OP question was straightforward: is the porcentual mechanic (rolling 1d100 and getting a number equal or less than your % of success) a widely disliked mechanic?
The answer is obvious: FUCK NO. Some of the most important, sucessful and widely played games ever use it. If you do not know Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest or you do not consider them some of the most important games in history, you have lived under a rock or you are mental. Many many persons play BRP or similar games, and it is an easy and straightforward mechanic.
Now, of course, some people may not like the mechanic for many reasons. To each their own, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Every time people play CoC they're using this mechanic. That fact alone should answer the question.
Quote from: Old One Eye;734192Well, that could be said of any mechanic. d20 is not universally popular. I personally do not like counting successes on dice pools.
At the end of the day every mechanic is disdained by someone somewhere.
Hell, if it has dice AT ALL there is a whole faction that will despise it.
Some people despise d20s. Some have a mad on for d4s. (probably because they stepped on one of the caltrops...) etc ad nausium.
Quote from: Imperator;734220I don't even understand how this thread got this convoluted.
The OP question was straightforward: is the porcentual mechanic (rolling 1d100 and getting a number equal or less than your % of success) a widely disliked mechanic?
The answer is obvious: FUCK NO. Some of the most important, sucessful and widely played games ever use it. If you do not know Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest or you do not consider them some of the most important games in history, you have lived under a rock or you are mental. Many many persons play BRP or similar games, and it is an easy and straightforward mechanic.
Now, of course, some people may not like the mechanic for many reasons. To each their own, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Every time people play CoC they're using this mechanic. That fact alone should answer the question.
At least at RPGnet, before the recent RuneQuest revival there seemed to be a common dislike for the d100 (frequently, mind-boggingly qualified as prone to yielding "too random" results*, as if any fair die could be "more random" than another) and for roll-under (frequently, mind-boggingly qualified as "counterintuitive"). The rising popularity of RQ6 shows that it was just a matter of trendiness and mental laziness.
*Apparently, some people aren't able to dstinguish between a property of the system from a property of a specific game (CoC, in which characters are meant to be common, fallible people likely to break down when facing otherworldly dangers)
Quote from: Imperator;734220I don't even understand how this thread got this convoluted.
It's just about always gone this way when I've questioned someone why they object to percentile-based games... they can't just leave it as 'not my taste', they have to go down some Numberwang rabbit hole to prove the objective reality of their preference.
Somehow I have the impression that it ties in with people who want to think that playing RPGs means they're 'smart'... and percentiles are just too easy... vs. showing off their math skills with something more complex.
Quote from: MatteoN;734224and for roll-under (frequently, mind-boggingly qualified as "counterintuitive").
That's hilarious.
Quote from: MatteoN;734224At least at RPGnet, before the recent RuneQuest revival there seemed to be a common dislike for the d100 (frequently, mind-boggingly qualified as prone to yielding "too random" results*, as if any fair die could be "more random" than another) and for roll-under (frequently, mind-boggingly qualified as "counterintuitive"). The rising popularity of RQ6 shows that it was just a matter of trendiness and mental laziness.
*Apparently, some people aren't able to dstinguish between a property of the system from a property of a specific game (CoC, in which characters are meant to be common, fallible people likely to break down when facing otherworldly dangers)
The research I have found on the cognitive cost of mental operations seems to show that the fastest cognitive operation (of those involved in your typical roll) would be to compare two numbers and see if one is higher than the other. After that you have addition, substraction and the like. So, the counterituive argument is fully retarded. Ditto for the too random results. You don't like randomness, go diceless, or go for a system that minimizes randomness, but don't accuse a dice of being too random.
And as shown by the thread, some people can criticize a game without having had the slightest contact with it.
Quote from: Simlasa;734225It's just about always gone this way when I've questioned someone why they object to percentile-based games... they can't just leave it as 'not my taste', they have to go down some Numberwang rabbit hole to prove the objective reality of their preference.
Somehow I have the impression that it ties in with people who want to think that playing RPGs means they're 'smart'... and percentiles are just too easy... vs. showing off their math skills with something more complex.
Maybe. Dunno, it seems silly to me.
Some time ago I had this great player who disliked BRP. Nothing irrational, he simply liked dice pools the most. When I asked him about that, he said "I like the physical sensation of playing Star Wars, spending a Force point and then grabbing a FUCKTON metric dice and comparing it with my humble beginnings, when I got to roll 4-5 at most. Dice pools give you a tactile feedback on how good you are, in CoC you always roll 1d100. BRP is great, nothing against it, but I'd rather roll big numbers of dice."
See? Calm expression of taste, nothing to discuss.
I'm going to design a game called Haruspex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruspex). I'll rock up to a convention with a truck full of sheep and they'll be like "hey, what's with the livestock?" and I'll be like "those ain't livestock man, those are my dice."
Reading the livers of sheep instead of the patterns of flocks of birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augury) is counterintuitive!
Quote from: Imperator;734229The research I have found on the cognitive cost of mental operations seems to show that the fastest cognitive operation (of those involved in your typical roll) would be to compare two numbers and see if one is higher than the other. After that you have addition, substraction and the like. So, the counterituive argument is fully retarded. Ditto for the too random results. You don't like randomness, go diceless, or go for a system that minimizes randomness, but don't accuse a dice of being too random.
And as shown by the thread, some people can criticize a game without having had the slightest contact with it.
Maybe. Dunno, it seems silly to me.
Some time ago I had this great player who disliked BRP. Nothing irrational, he simply liked dice pools the most. When I asked him about that, he said "I like the physical sensation of playing Star Wars, spending a Force point and then grabbing a FUCKTON metric dice and comparing it with my humble beginnings, when I got to roll 4-5 at most. Dice pools give you a tactile feedback on how good you are, in CoC you always roll 1d100. BRP is great, nothing against it, but I'd rather roll big numbers of dice."
See? Calm expression of taste, nothing to discuss.
That is a very good explanation of one persons preference for huge piles of dice.
Personally I hate huge piles of dice, but that does put at least one guys preference in perspective.
I like the "roll under %" mechanic. It's simple, straightforward and it's easier to tweak difficulty relatively intuitively and at quite a granular level than with other dice mechanics.
That said, I have a soft spot for exploding dice due to fond memories of playing Shadowrun 2nd Edition many, many moons ago.
Quote from: Imperator;734229Some time ago I had this great player who disliked BRP. Nothing irrational, he simply liked dice pools the most. When I asked him about that, he said "I like the physical sensation of playing Star Wars, spending a Force point and then grabbing a FUCKTON metric dice and comparing it with my humble beginnings, when I got to roll 4-5 at most. Dice pools give you a tactile feedback on how good you are, in CoC you always roll 1d100. BRP is great, nothing against it, but I'd rather roll big numbers of dice."
See? Calm expression of taste, nothing to discuss.
Well, I admit playing CHAMPIONS it was fun to grab a huge wad of dice when Green Lantern let somebody have it with a full-force power beam.
But no less fun for me than picking up percentile dice and knowing that if I roll anything under a 90 I hit.
Honestly, "what dice you roll and how you roll them" is probably the very last thing I consider when I decide if I'll play in a game.
In fact, it's "people, setting, food, beer." Dice and rules don't enter into it.
Quote from: Old Geezer;734335Honestly, "what dice you roll and how you roll them" is probably the very last thing I consider when I decide if I'll play in a game.
In fact, it's "people, setting, food, beer." Dice and rules don't enter into it.
Certainly. But for at least myself, those things are a given. The only variable is what game.
gamerGoyf and ForumScavenger are hereby declared to be keter class cognitohazards. Containment procedures are as follows: containment in a 10x10x10 titanium cell suitable for human occupancy. At no time are SCP-3001-A or SCP-3001-B to be permitted any type of printed, dice-based role-playing game, or materials to create one. Access to personnel knowledgeable about such games is likewise forbidden. O5 Approval required before personnel with extensive knowledge of statistics and probabilities can be permitted contact with either SCP-3001-A or SCP-3001-B.
In the event of containment breach use of lethal force in recapture of SCP-3001-A and or SCP-3001-B to prevent access to computers capable of connecting to publicly accessible internet, the aforementioned printed role-playing games or persons knowledgeable of same subjects is permitted.
OP-5, [REDACTED]
Secure, Contain, Protect
Quote from: thedungeondelver;734470gamerGoyf and ForumScavenger are hereby declared to be keter class cognitohazards.
Do you think Montauk-110 applies? It might actually do them some good, I think.
Quote from: The Butcher;734492Do you think Montauk-110 applies? It might actually do them some good, I think.
The presence of two (2) confirmed Atheists (grade of 85 or better on Harbaugh Belief Scale) is to be added to Montauk-110 if that's the case.
Contact Director [REDACTED] for a list of potentially suitable personnel.
I tried to catch up on this thread but got progressively dumber reading it.
Quote from: Brad;734561I tried to catch up on this thread but got progressively dumber reading it.
"This is a scroll of learning disability.......has yoo reed this sroll u will slows lose da abillytee to understood da writtin wood dfe das ddddfes fffeser sree...."
Quote from: Brad;734561I tried to catch up on this thread but got progressively dumber reading it.
ditto.
a flaming 5 car interstate pileup that i cannot help but gawk at...
"The use of excessive force in the apprehension of gamerGoyf and ForumScavenger has been authorized."
What I found to be the best thing about this thread is that D&D/D20 diehards were defending the D100 mechanic. Long may it continue!
Quote from: Old Geezer;734577"The use of excessive force in the apprehension of gamerGoyf and ForumScavenger has been authorized."
Can we only use D6 or am I allowed to use my funky FFG force dice.
Yeah, I definitely have no issue with roll-under %. I don't quite like it as much as the D&D mechanics, but I sure like it shitloads more than roll-over %, or dice pools of almost any kind.
Quote from: smiorgan;734231I'm going to design a game called Haruspex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruspex). I'll rock up to a convention with a truck full of sheep and they'll be like "hey, what's with the livestock?" and I'll be like "those ain't livestock man, those are my dice."
Chickens would be funnier. Just sayin'...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;731165While researching systems pertaining to the Starcraft thread I was reminded of a refrain I've heard a few times over the years - that "roll a d100 under an attribute or % DC" is a widely disliked mechanic. I've never quite understood this sentiment.
Have you noticed this attitude in your circles? What's the reasoning?
The whole point of rolling a D20 is to roll a 20. That's what RPGing means to most RPGers. They don't think about game mechanics all that much.
In Internet, you can find some critics. Outside Internet you probably don't. Some phenomenons are Internet - only. The hate for BRP is one of them.
Quote from: Imperator;737873In Internet, you can find some critics. Outside Internet you probably don't. Some phenomenons are Internet - only. The hate for BRP is one of them.
I've run into it, out in the wild... like I said, the Saturday group I played with had a hate on for % games and BRP in particular. Their reasons boiled down to it not being 'realistic' in some bullshitty mathmatical way.
I quit that group and am happier now.
Quote from: Simlasa;737903I've run into it, out in the wild... like I said, the Saturday group I played with had a hate on for % games and BRP in particular. Their reasons boiled down to it not being 'realistic' in some bullshitty mathmatical way.
I quit that group and am happier now.
So what kind of system *did* they consider to be "realistic"?
Quote from: 3rik;737915So what kind of system *did* they consider to be "realistic"?
Let me guess: blah blah bell curve yadda yadda yadda.
I love roll under %. I will use 2d6 and 3d6 roll under as well. Everything else- I avoid.
And I think 'low to hit', 'high to damage' is just intuitively correct.
Put me down under "I just play the game and don't worry about the fucking dice." I can't think of a single game I've quit or refused to play purely because of the way dice were used.
Quote from: Old Geezer;737924Put me down under "I just play the game and don't worry about the fucking dice." I can't think of a single game I've quit or refused to play purely because of the way dice were used.
I know one gamer that will not play any rpg that uses a d20.
Quote from: Bill;737942I know one gamer that will not play any rpg that uses a d20.
Show her/him this cover:
(http://www.fantasymagazine.it/imgbank/ARTICOLI/uno_sguardo_nel_buio_2_-_copertina.jpg)
Quote from: Bill;737942I know one gamer that will not play any rpg that uses a d20.
My only answer to that would be "dude, seriously?"
Quote from: Bill;737942I know one gamer that will not play any rpg that uses a d20.
It's not unreasonable.
A game's core die mechanic tells you a good amount of information in a first glance sort of way. The likely design influences (D20 screams D&D or a clone) for example. A game using FUDGE dice, or one that has based skills on multiple dice types (SW) all come with meaningful baggage that matters to anyone who has significant mechanical likes and dislikes.
It doesn't give the whole story of course, but it can create an upfront impression.
And for those who don't have mechanical likes and dislikes- that's a marker too. That person isn't a gamer (he may be a role-player however).
Quote from: MatteoN;737946Show her/him this cover:
(http://www.fantasymagazine.it/imgbank/ARTICOLI/uno_sguardo_nel_buio_2_-_copertina.jpg)
He would not survive.
Quote from: gleichman;737966It's not unreasonable.
A game's core die mechanic tells you a good amount of information in a first glance sort of way. The likely design influences (D20 screams D&D or a clone) for example. A game using FUDGE dice, or one that has based skills on multiple dice types (SW) all come with meaningful baggage that matters to anyone who has significant mechanical likes and dislikes.
It doesn't give the whole story of course, but it can create an upfront impression.
And for those who don't have mechanical likes and dislikes- that's a marker too. That person isn't a gamer (he may be a role-player however).
I think it is very unreasonable when stated before one is familiar with the system in question.
Welcome back by the way; you have been gone a while.
Quote from: 3rik;737915So what kind of system *did* they consider to be "realistic"?
The guy who squalked the loudest was the Earthdawn GM, running a heavily homebrewed version (which he kept 'fixing' every other session)... combats were pretty damn slow. One of the other guys is a huge fan of Hero System. They're all tech geeks and I think they just enjoy having a lot of math to play with.
I should have drug out my Phoenix Command books for them to drool over.
Quote from: MatteoN;737916Let me guess: blah blah bell curve yadda yadda yadda.
Something along those lines, yeah. More of the "it's too random" argument.
Quote from: Bill;737985I think it is very unreasonable when stated before one is familiar with the system in question.
Count me as unreasonable then, as if that wasn't only the case. But seriously, I've looked at the dice and then put the effort in to confirm my first impressions.
I can't remember a time when I was wrong. Game designers are by and large a unimaginative group and seldom offer anything that alters the feeling of a core mechanic or even die selection.
Quote from: Bill;737985Welcome back by the way; you have been gone a while.
Busy, and I don't have much to talk about online anymore.
Quote from: gleichman;737995. . . I don't have much to talk about online anymore.
. . . says the guy with eleven posts this morning.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;737999. . . says the guy with eleven posts this morning.
And how many for months before that?
You're one of those people who really try hard to be clever, pity you don't have someone at home to slap you back into reality.
Quote from: gleichman;738001And how many for months before that?
It's a pity you decided to break your silence.
Quote from: gleichman;738001You're one of those people who really try hard to be clever, pity you don't have someone at home to slap you back into reality.
Fortunately for me, then, that seeing through your bullshit doesn't take cleverness, just a couple of neurons and a pulse.
Girls, GIRLS! You're BOTH pretty!
Quote from: Old Geezer;738015Girls, GIRLS! You're BOTH pretty!
You're not a gamer, by the way. Though you *might* be a role player. ;)
Quote from: Bill;737942I know one gamer that will not play any rpg that uses a d20.
Because D&D and HeroQuest are the same game?
That's as bad as not playing in a setting because there are elves.
Quote from: soltakss;738024Because D&D and HeroQuest are the same game?
That's as bad as not playing in a setting because there are elves.
Generally speaking, most people don't have logical reasons for their dumbass notions.
Quote from: soltakss;738024Because D&D and HeroQuest are the same game?
Never played or saw HeroQuest that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if in my view they were the same game. Too many games are D&D with insignificant changes.
Quote from: Old Geezer;738039Generally speaking, most people don't have logical reasons for their dumbass notions.
"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."
-Mr. Heinlein
Ingrid's Back! No, wait; that's not a Gnome Ranger, it's Gleichman!
I still think Age of Heroes is a well crafted system, though I'm not likely ever to use it. And I still think some other things, which might make your eyes bleed oh prophet, are good designs because I actually do use them and find them a lot of fun.
Quote from: Imperator;734220I don't even understand how this thread got this convoluted.
The OP question was straightforward: is the porcentual mechanic (rolling 1d100 and getting a number equal or less than your % of success) a widely disliked mechanic?
The answer is obvious: FUCK NO. Some of the most important, sucessful and widely played games ever use it.
That's just a FUCK YES to the question of whether it's widely
liked.
As is the case with people, things can be both widely liked and widely disliked. In the case of percentile dice tosses, the number of people in the "like" or "don't care" categories combined are plenty to make a big seller. Along with the "don't like" people, they're going to pass up a majority of publications anyway. Why fret about your glass being half empty, when half full is a spectacular success?
Quote from: Imperator;734229The research I have found on the cognitive cost of mental operations seems to show that the fastest cognitive operation (of those involved in your typical roll) would be to compare two numbers and see if one is higher than the other.
Except when you get someone who instead spends his cogitation on thinking that it's weird, and thinking about irrelevant stuff that gets him confused.
I tried a D&D-variant attack roll that came down to seeing whether the number on a d20 was
(A) higher than a number on the character sheet (plain miss); or
(B) not higher (call it out, and you hit a defense factor that high or lower).
Oy. Take arithmetic out of the process, and it becomes
too simple for some people!
Quote from: gleichman;738047Never played or saw HeroQuest that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if in my view they were the same game. Too many games are D&D with insignificant changes.
Pretty sure they aren't. I haven't been able to fully wrap my head around HQ (assume we're talking the Stafford/Laws game) but HQ seems structurally based around the ideas of:
Universal mechanic based on opposed rolls
Arbitrary traits that can be matched against each other
Some hippie shit with a symbol that looks like a Cyrillic letter. Or more seriously, open-ended, tiered trait scores that allow you to resolve conflicts between opponents who have wildly different scales.
I don't understand or remember why characteristics can't just go from zero to infinity, and instead are treated as "N levels of Mastery plus x degrees of fine differentiation".I think it may have some Over the Edge in its ancestry along with Ars Magica but since I know those systems even less well, I'm kinda flailing at a piñata.
Nevertheless if you look upthread I think I said something similar about dice as a proxy for design heritage in both a mechanical and aesthetic sense.
Quote from: gleichman;737966D20 screams D&D or a clone
Quote from: gleichman;738047Never played or saw HeroQuest that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if in my view they were the same game. Too many games are D&D with insignificant changes.
Quote from: Arminius;738115Pretty sure they aren't.
Nor are clones of D&D Pendragon, Alternity, The Dark Eye (the game with the "gazing d20" on the cover), Kult, Mutant Chronicles, Dungeonslayers and others. These (in the case of TDE I'm referring to its first or second edition) are all roll-under systems using a d20, fancy that!
Quote from: Arminius;738115Universal mechanic based on opposed rolls
Arbitrary traits that can be matched against each other
Opposed rolls, ugh. Hate those, double hate it when using a d20 (or any other linear die).
Quote from: Arminius;738115Nevertheless if you look upthread I think I said something similar about dice as a proxy for design heritage in both a mechanical and aesthetic sense.
I think it holds up quite well, one can list exceptions of course. But even then I think they are a case of the designer saying something like "I love me the D&D d20, but I need to do something different with it...". That never ends well.
But all that isn't to say that I'll rush to a game just because it used d100 or 3d6. Only War (d100) was a complete failure and so is GURPS. Nor does it means I'd reject a d20 (although I have yet to see one that I like) game in all possible cases. It just alters how easy it will be to get me to look closer.
Quote from: Phillip;738112That's just a FUCK YES to the question of whether it's widely liked.
As is the case with people, things can be both widely liked and widely disliked. In the case of percentile dice tosses, the number of people in the "like" or "don't care" categories combined are plenty to make a big seller. Along with the "don't like" people, they're going to pass up a majority of publications anyway. Why fret about your glass being half empty, when half full is a spectacular success?
Yeah, so anyway, OP has been sufficiently answered, ain't it?
Quote from: Imperator;738174Yeah, so anyway, OP has been sufficiently answered, ain't it?
No.
This is the RPGsite.
we need to bring up some more off-topic minutiae to argue about.