d100 % Dice can do everything well.
Finite Detail? Yes.
General Pass / Fail? Yes.
Easy to Read and Understand? Yes.
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Quote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMd100 % Dice can do everything well.
...
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Largely because Rune Quest wasn't D&D.
Also there is really nothing that a d100 system does unless they go for super granularity, that a d20 roll low or high cannot replicate at the table.
The last d% game that I really loved was Star Frontiers. Then they came out with a colored chart which firmly sent me into the Traveller camp.
I guess it's the charts. For some reason people who design d% games want to make you use a ton of charts during a game. Rollmaster, Marvel, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Hârnmaster.... It just got on my nerves. I want to know if something happens without having to stop the game and thumb through a book.
That's not to say I hate all charts. Or even a d% mechanic.
And if a really good GM runs a d% game I will very likely enjoy myself.
Most dnd players can't count to 100.
Quote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMd100 % Dice can do everything well.
Finite Detail? Yes.
General Pass / Fail? Yes.
Easy to Read and Understand? Yes.
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Very few players actually care about that list of features. Even Chaosium doesn't care about them, which is why Call of C'thulu now has Bonus and Penalty dice which work precisely like 5E advantage, thus ruining percentile's perfect mechanical transparency.
Players typically prefer game mechanics which convey game feel, which do something unusual, or have streamlined arithmetic. The order will vary from player to player and occasion to occasion, but players typically understand and appreciate streamlined arithmetic the most. They will prefer systems which take less work to run more than everything else in most circumstances. Percentile takes more effort to use at the table than D20 and players can't realistically feel anything modifying a roll by less than 5% (that figure is probably closer to 10%), so why would you bother upgrading D20 to D100?
Because a 2% increase is lame, but a 5% increase is ok. Divide by 5. Hey, a 1D20.
Personally, I wouldn't mind an RPG that uses 1D10 as the core rule. It's just percentile, but in 10% increments.
"How hard is it to jump over this crevasse? About a 60% success rate? Ok, roll 1D10 and get equal or under a 6, but Carl is can add his +1 DEX bonus to raise it to 70%, aka a 7."
It's sort of like a percentile.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on August 09, 2024, 06:49:33 PMBecause a 2% increase is lame, but a 5% increase is ok. Divide by 5. Hey, a 1D20.
This really stood out to me reading the Warhammer Fantasy rules. You buy advances in percentile increments and it takes a couple of sessions to earn enough to advance once. So you're looking at 10 sessions to get a 5% increase.
That's one hell of a commitment to get to high competency in that game.
Is there a resistance to d100? After D20, I'd say it's the most popular core dice mechanic. The only contender would be D6, but I can name way more popular/significant/famous D100 games than I can D6 ones.
Star Frontiers is still chugging away with fan stuff and a magazine even after wotc changed the deal with the SF group.
Quote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMWhy haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Because individual mechanics each convey a certain "feel" in action. 3d6 roll-under feels different from Ability + d20 vs. DC, which in turn feels different from d% roll-under, which in turn feels different from d% roll-
over, which in turn feels different from d10 success-counting dice pools which in turn feels different from WEG's D6 total-it-all-up dice pools ... you get the idea.
None of these mechanics is "better" or "worse" than any other, only more or less appropriate for the particular feel of a given game.
Most don't need fine detail. Numbers under 5% difference will be lost in the randomness of the dice. Just think of it this way: suppose a player didn't know how good their Sword skill was, but the DM knew. Every time the player threw the dice, the DM said pass or fail. How many dice rolls would it take, how many sessions, weeks or months, before they figured out their skill level was X?
In a percentile system, it'd likely be a long time. With something like d20, quicker. A single d6, quite quickly. In other words, percentile offers a difference which is mostly illusory - you can't actually see it in play.
Most of the more popular systems have a general pass/fail, though some like a critical success or failure - as does the original percentile system, RuneQuest.
Most skill systems are easy to read and understand. The only issue there is how many different skills characters have, or can have. Fewer than about 20 skills and your skill system is essentially a character class system. "My skill is Fighter, his skill is Wizard."
More than 100 skills and you get the "what do you mean I have 90% Longsword but only 15% Shortsword, that's stupid!" or else you put in defaults, "Okay so I have 90% Longsword which gives me half-skill which is 45%, but I also have Club 60% which gives me one-third skill which is 20%, so is my Shortsword 45% or 20% or do I add them together and get 65%? I forget," and then it's no longer easy to understand - cf GURPS.
So in practice most skill-based systems will settle down to 30-80 different skills, though it may be more depending on how you count them, eg there might be Drive - manual, Drive - auto, Drive - rigid truck, Drive - tracked, and so on, is that 10 Drive skills or just 1?
But aside from the consideration of number of skills, most skill systems are easy to read and understand, whether you're using percentile, 2d6, dice pools or whatever. That's why people use them.
Quote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMd100 % Dice can do everything well.
Resolve a test with one die?
QuoteFinite Detail? Yes.
General Pass / Fail? Yes.
Easy to Read and Understand? Yes.
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
I'm being serious here. The D20 is the last dice in the standard RPG set* that can generate a number on it's own. After that, you have to roll multiple dice. And the D% represents a 5X increase in granularity and some (I think most) gamers don't want that amount of granularity and the typical increase in complexity that D% systems come with.
*a huge-ass 100 sided dice is pretty uncommon and unwieldy.
I'd have to give this more thought before I committed to it, but one possible advantage of the D20 over the D100 is it being closer in value to the other dice in the standard gaming set. By adding a +1d12, you get a variable range of anywhere between +5% and +60% to the chances, and you can modulate the top end of that set down by using smaller dice or the bottom end up by using multiples.
Quote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMd100 % Dice can do everything well.
Finite Detail? Yes.
General Pass / Fail? Yes.
Easy to Read and Understand? Yes.
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Six sided dice are more common and familiar to people.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 09, 2024, 10:55:22 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMd100 % Dice can do everything well.
Finite Detail? Yes.
General Pass / Fail? Yes.
Easy to Read and Understand? Yes.
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Six sided dice are more common and familiar to people.
I love d6 action, myself. I don't mind d20, either. Especially d20 roll under ability scores. But I could embrace d100, and never look back. I read where people in general, often complain about d100; but it just seems like d20 with more granularity, or finite detail.
Well, people like variety (see e.g. Savage Worlds) and D20 systems came earlier.
But I do think D100, as used in e.g. Runequest, is pretty awesome. And the granularity was used creatively from the start in that game. E.g. if you have 80% in spear, a D100 roll of less than 16% (1/5 of 80) is an impale, and less than 4% (1/20 of 80) is a critical hit.
That's not to say you can't do similar things in other systems, but the way it works in RQ is pretty neat.
Part of the resistance to d100 is really resistance to roll under. The two often go together, because rolling under your percentage is one of the best things about d100 for new players. Even complete novices that are math challenged have some idea of what a skill of 55% means.
You should not discount personal taste in that equation, either. I rather like d100, except for the multiple dice for every check thing. However, I have a strong, negative feel to any roll under mechanic. It's a testament to how well Runequest works, that I like it a lot despite the roll under.
You have a 90% chance of success. Roll 90 or under, and you're all good.
That's so dang simple, and it's not just a target number; it's the actual percentage chance of success, at the same time.
However, I completely appreciate the concept of personal preference.
For example: I love the d6 mechanic in Tiny Dungeon.
Roll 2 d6. If either one shows a 5 or 6, you succeed. Have Advantage? Roll 3 d6. Have Disadvantage? Roll 1 d6.
That's fun, and I don't even know what the actual chances of success are, above 1 d6?
Let me preface this with the fact that one of my go-to games that I run consistently is a d100 game (Marvel Superheroes/Heroic).
I think the problem is that many players/GM's feel d100 is "swingy". And while statistically this is no different, per se, than any other set of statistical probabilities, it *feels* swingy.
MSH mitigates a lot of this with its Karma system. I think this is one of those times where metacurrencies are good for the game. But of course it opens up other potential issues on the GM side to be wary of.
I'm enamored with Runescape/Mythras, but I've yet to actually run it.
Doing math with number 1-20 is easier than doing math with numbers 1-100.
What does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
Also too many d% games rely on starting very low combat % and expect people (GM included) to maturely run dice tests only as necessary -- which since combat is typically explicitly life and death this gets lost in nuanced translation. So you get much whiffing, more whiffing than the typical AC 10 (WotC 50% or TSR 55%) threshold. Given people dislike unclear instructions, required experienced nuance, and much whiffing, it's not a surprise CoC and other d% starting you at 20% or 30% Punch, Kick, & Shoot is not garnering as much enthusiasm to switch. CoC is popular because you're expected to die, heroic in spite of the odds, so flailing is excused. But if you don't understand the conceits on system methodology it'd be hard to see using this system for other things and satisfied watching repeated failure.
Baseline, majority of humans like just enough failure and just enough success. The answer is around 2/3s success rate 66%, with a 15% swing plus or minus, to feel fair yet thrilling. That's where the game is; design from there. Everything else is fighting against nature and obfuscating expectations. Yes, eventually even this will get boring for some, but some is not the majority. ;) Want popularity, there it is.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2024, 02:19:54 AMWhat does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
It depends on the game. I know of one game where it's "0" as the die result range is set for 0-99 and it's roll under (not equal to or under). However, for most games I'm aware of, it's treated as "100"
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 10, 2024, 02:44:09 AMAlso too many d% games rely on starting very low combat % and expect people (GM included) to maturely run dice tests only as necessary -- which since combat is typically explicitly life and death this gets lost in nuanced translation. So you get much whiffing, more whiffing than the typical AC 10 (WotC 50% or TSR 55%) threshold. Given people dislike unclear instructions, required experienced nuance, and much whiffing, it's not a surprise CoC and other d% starting you at 20% or 30% Punch, Kick, & Shoot is not garnering as much enthusiasm to switch.
Warhammer Fantasy 4th edition is another game where a starting character is likely to have skill percentages in the 30s, but a standard difficulty test is at +20% to compensate. I once played with a GM who just didn't get that, and so he functionally made every Test at "challenging" difficulty. It was quite annoying.
Quote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 11:20:45 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on August 09, 2024, 10:55:22 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on August 09, 2024, 05:38:41 PMd100 % Dice can do everything well.
Finite Detail? Yes.
General Pass / Fail? Yes.
Easy to Read and Understand? Yes.
Why haven't d100 % Dice Mechanics become more universal, in RPGs?
Six sided dice are more common and familiar to people.
I love d6 action, myself. I don't mind d20, either. Especially d20 roll under ability scores. But I could embrace d100, and never look back. I read where people in general, often complain about d100; but it just seems like d20 with more granularity, or finite detail.
Sometimes that extra granularity slows down actual play. Which do you find faster? D6, d20, or d100 roll mechanics?
1% chance of rolling a 100 on 1d100. 5% chance of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Plus d100 always roll off the table and then ya gotta find em.
(https://buffy.mlpforums.com/imageproxy/liar.gif.8d9e26c85ea4cccbf0f0679b58219c9a.gif)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2024, 02:19:54 AMWhat does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
Was going to post exactly this. The number of idiots who just flat out seem to willfully misread percentile dice as 00-99 is pathetic.
Quote from: Omega on August 11, 2024, 08:09:59 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2024, 02:19:54 AMWhat does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
Was going to post exactly this. The number of idiots who just flat out seem to willfully misread percentile dice as 00-99 is pathetic.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 10, 2024, 03:26:16 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2024, 02:19:54 AMWhat does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
It depends on the game. I know of one game where it's "0" as the die result range is set for 0-99 and it's roll under (not equal to or under). However, for most games I'm aware of, it's treated as "100"
Actually reading it like 00-99 while not the original way still gives you 100 possible outcomes...
I was talking about the real idiots that go 00-100, which is 101 possible outcomes and requires an exception to get 100 but nothing beyond that.
I think people just use the d20 because D&D is the most popular game.
The d100 is great.
Although it requires two dice, and the d20 could be popular precisely because it is the biggest dice you can roll alone (I have a d30, it looks a bit clumsy but could work too).
My particular issue is that I have a player that always "forgets" which dice is the tens...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2024, 02:19:54 AMWhat does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
Most people (99%?) would say 00 means 100.
I agree, but I think there are good reasons to use 00 as a critical hit if you're doing "doubles are critical hits/misses", an idea I really like.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 02:08:11 PM"forgets" which dice is the tens...
the lighter colored die is the ones. "light is low"
decaders are satan's testicles, and are not recommended
Quote from: Theory of Games on August 10, 2024, 12:26:41 PM1% chance of rolling a 100 on 1d100. 5% chance of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Plus d100 always roll off the table and then ya gotta find em.
(https://buffy.mlpforums.com/imageproxy/liar.gif.8d9e26c85ea4cccbf0f0679b58219c9a.gif)
Good point. The d20 Crits, 5% of the time. That's enough to keep d100 from ever overtaking d20, in the popular market.
But you can also play d100, any way you want to. What some people call granularity, is really just more options. D100 could be dead simple, or quite complex.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 10, 2024, 02:19:54 AMWhat does 0+00 read like?
Ask that on some social media and you'll get ONE reason, people who have been playing for years don't know how to read the d%
What a coinkydink. This came up in the 5Parsecs reddit today.
https://www.reddit.com/r/5Parsecs/comments/1eph5tv/tables_for_d100_should_be_099/
BTW, one reason 00 must mean 100 is that otherwise you wouldn't roll for 99% chance, and 3% would actually be 4% (01, 02, 03 and 00), etc.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 05:23:04 PMBTW, one reason 00 must mean 100 is that otherwise you wouldn't roll for 99% chance, and 3% would actually be 4% (01, 02, 03 and 00), etc.
That's if you do "Roll your percentage or lower" as the mechanic. The other way is a strict "Roll under your percentage", treating 00 as 0. Both ways line up that your percentage skill is your actual chance. The main benefit of the latter is if you want to treat double as special (instead of calculating a fraction of the percentage), as it means 00 is always a special success and 99 is always a special failure, with the specials fairly distributed based on your skill.
I started a design that worked the latter way. That part worked very well. I abandoned it for other reasons (primarily related to the way modifiers work in percentage roll under systems, always a little extra handling time no matter how you do them).
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 11, 2024, 07:28:56 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 05:23:04 PMBTW, one reason 00 must mean 100 is that otherwise you wouldn't roll for 99% chance, and 3% would actually be 4% (01, 02, 03 and 00), etc.
That's if you do "Roll your percentage or lower" as the mechanic. The other way is a strict "Roll under your percentage", treating 00 as 0. Both ways line up that your percentage skill is your actual chance. The main benefit of the latter is if you want to treat double as special (instead of calculating a fraction of the percentage), as it means 00 is always a special success and 99 is always a special failure, with the specials fairly distributed based on your skill.
I started a design that worked the latter way. That part worked very well. I abandoned it for other reasons (primarily related to the way modifiers work in percentage roll under systems, always a little extra handling time no matter how you do them).
Ah yes, good point. Makes perfect sense although most people are used to "if you hit the exact number, you succeed".
I love treating doubles as special, it has several advantages: 10% of the results are special, but if you are really good you might have 9% specially good results and 1% specially bad.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 08:56:02 PMI love treating doubles as special, it has several advantages: 10% of the results are special, but if you are really good you might have 9% specially good results and 1% specially bad.
Yep, instant pattern recognition by even slow players, with elegant scaling as the modifiers move, and pays for having that second dice on every roll with something besides the binary success/failure. For a two dice mechanic with specials, can't beat the handling time.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 08:56:02 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on August 11, 2024, 07:28:56 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 05:23:04 PMBTW, one reason 00 must mean 100 is that otherwise you wouldn't roll for 99% chance, and 3% would actually be 4% (01, 02, 03 and 00), etc.
That's if you do "Roll your percentage or lower" as the mechanic. The other way is a strict "Roll under your percentage", treating 00 as 0. Both ways line up that your percentage skill is your actual chance. The main benefit of the latter is if you want to treat double as special (instead of calculating a fraction of the percentage), as it means 00 is always a special success and 99 is always a special failure, with the specials fairly distributed based on your skill.
I started a design that worked the latter way. That part worked very well. I abandoned it for other reasons (primarily related to the way modifiers work in percentage roll under systems, always a little extra handling time no matter how you do them).
Ah yes, good point. Makes perfect sense although most people are used to "if you hit the exact number, you succeed".
I love treating doubles as special, it has several advantages: 10% of the results are special, but if you are really good you might have 9% specially good results and 1% specially bad.
This is the Eclipse Phase 2e approach, although it uses "blackjack" resolution (you want to roll as high as possible without exceeding (or was it equaling?) your modified skill rating, and doubles were criticals.
I just don't really see any advantage to D100 over D20 for the vast majority of people tbh
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 11, 2024, 07:28:56 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 11, 2024, 05:23:04 PMBTW, one reason 00 must mean 100 is that otherwise you wouldn't roll for 99% chance, and 3% would actually be 4% (01, 02, 03 and 00), etc.
That's if you do "Roll your percentage or lower" as the mechanic. The other way is a strict "Roll under your percentage", treating 00 as 0. Both ways line up that your percentage skill is your actual chance. The main benefit of the latter is if you want to treat double as special (instead of calculating a fraction of the percentage), as it means 00 is always a special success and 99 is always a special failure, with the specials fairly distributed based on your skill.
That works. You could also keep "00" as one hundred, and treat any "0" on the ones die as meaning special success (i.e. 10, 20, 30, 40... instead of 00, 11, 22, 33, etc.).
One of the HarnMaster editions had special results for any "0" or "5" on the ones die.
Quote from: JohnDiggity on August 11, 2024, 11:27:32 PMI just don't really see any advantage to D100 over D20 for the vast majority of people tbh
Fewer ties.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 10, 2024, 11:28:57 AMSometimes that extra granularity slows down actual play. Which do you find faster? D6, d20, or d100 roll mechanics?
I haven't found that the type of die used, by itself, has any noticeable effect on the speed of play. What slows down play is systems that require the players to read the dice in odd ways and/or to read multiple dice and interpret the results.
I believe Unknown Armies (early versions at least) used d100 and, doubles (11, 22, 33, etc) below Skill level were critical hits, whereas doubles over Skill level were critical fails.
It wouldn't surprise me if the first and largest to market paradigm (d20) had the most impact simply because of that.
I wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.
It works well enough in the old marvel game, and i like it in the war machine rules in becmi. It seems kinda binary pass fail though in most implementations i've heard people suggest, whereas outcome ranges like "failed, passed, passed good, blew it out the water piss on the fire call in the dogs and do not swap the labels on the butt-plug ball-gag combo because its over chief" is preferable.
Quote from: David Johansen on August 09, 2024, 09:56:14 PMQuote from: Jaeger on August 09, 2024, 06:02:45 PMLargely because Rune Quest wasn't D&D.
So, ducks?
Haaaaaaaa ! Rgr that !
When my girls' Castle & Crusade / Tolkien home brew was winding down and it was time to chose a new game, it was a coin toss between Call of Cthluhu/Delta Green and Ruen Quest. CoC/DG won out when I explained it and then had them watch a few X-Files shows. But it was close.
If RQ had won out, I would have trimmed out A LOT of the craziness like duck people etc and reworked it in a more real(ish) pre-biblical / early Bronze age setting.
That said, I love d20 rules & d100 rules and heck even Traveller's d66 rules. I don't like 'toss lots of dice' games & I HATE games that are toss a lot of dice and only a 6 counts as a success. I played Alien once and was tossing something like 7-8 dice and still getting NO successes .... (Yes my dice un-luck is very well know and the butt of much humor in the game groups I play/run)
I will say that the new trend of advantage/disadvantage - in d20 or d100 games either way - is a rule I always home brew out ! Again with my poor luck, rolling 2 dice for an advantages is worse because you toss the dice and look at 2 dice that are normally failures (talk about rubbing salt in wounds on that) but if you give me a few +s as the bonus (v the advantage) I might actually succeed every once in a while.
Now, a d100 system I'm iffy on. Our Monday Night group is getting ready to start an 'Against the Dark Master' game - I LOVE the setting character creation etc - however, the idea of roll a 100, that can explode in the + or - direction, plus your skill %, and add 10-30 for this situation, but subtract X for the defender's defense and subtract 10-30 for this other situation, might be a little to learn. (Still look forward to trying it though! But, I think I'm going to need a good calculator ... )
If players like d100 systems, but are stuck with a d20 loving group, they can always play a Thief in older edition D&D. Best of both worlds I guess.
A lot more use of the d100 in the D&D pre-universal mechanic system and all the kids managed to survive somehow and no one really cared much as those were the rules of play. The d20 may have technical/psychological reasons why it is preferred, but the overwhelming one seems to be the D&D '20 critical' thing is so ingrained it is known by those who don't even play the game and they will feel cheated if they don't get it when trying an RPG.
On an aside, I feel making one of the 10 die a '00' in dice sets was a terrible idea. Just make two '0' of different colours: everyone knows red is 10's and black is 1's and everyone just seems to read it just fine without debates or confusion. Anyone who can't figure out '0,0' means 100 probably had their brain already explode when trying to understand THAC0.
Quote from: Lynn on August 12, 2024, 01:27:14 AMI believe Unknown Armies (early versions at least) used d100 and, doubles (11, 22, 33, etc) below Skill level were critical hits, whereas doubles over Skill level were critical fails.
It wouldn't surprise me if the first and largest to market paradigm (d20) had the most impact simply because of that.
I wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.
This is what bugs me about d100% systems, characters are basically so incredibly incompetent. A surgeon might have a skill of 55% and that means he kills 45% of the people he operates on. You can add difficulties, but it doesn't scale that well compared to the original skill %
The old Buck Rogers RPG used d100% skills and multiplied or divided the score depending on the difficulty, which I thought worked well, but people struggle with subtraction these days, much less multiplication and division of two digit numbers.
Quote from: JeremyR on August 13, 2024, 01:14:40 AMQuote from: Lynn on August 12, 2024, 01:27:14 AMI wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.
This is what bugs me about d100% systems, characters are basically so incredibly incompetent. A surgeon might have a skill of 55% and that means he kills 45% of the people he operates on. You can add difficulties, but it doesn't scale that well compared to the original skill %
It just doesn't make any sense. If someone is competent, then performing a task in a 'normal' amount of time, with the 'normal' tools should simply be a success. A
risk of failure should happen though, under not normal conditions.
Quote from: Lynn on August 12, 2024, 01:27:14 AMI believe Unknown Armies (early versions at least) used d100 and, doubles (11, 22, 33, etc) below Skill level were critical hits, whereas doubles over Skill level were critical fails.
It wouldn't surprise me if the first and largest to market paradigm (d20) had the most impact simply because of that.
I wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.
Thief skills in AD&D are comically bad. As explained in the book, you're usually better off with a fighter using a 10' pole to poke around. His chance to sneak around isn't much worse either.
Quote from: Lynn on August 13, 2024, 02:15:04 AMQuote from: JeremyR on August 13, 2024, 01:14:40 AMQuote from: Lynn on August 12, 2024, 01:27:14 AMI wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.
This is what bugs me about d100% systems, characters are basically so incredibly incompetent. A surgeon might have a skill of 55% and that means he kills 45% of the people he operates on. You can add difficulties, but it doesn't scale that well compared to the original skill %
It just doesn't make any sense. If someone is competent, then performing a task in a 'normal' amount of time, with the 'normal' tools should simply be a success. A risk of failure should happen though, under not normal conditions.
Sorry, this isn't quite what is being talked about but it made me think of this real-life example.
The interesting part is if you try to model things like a Whipple procedure for Pancreatic Cancer. They take half the pancreas and move all the internal organs away, to delay invasion if it reoccurs.
When done in a hospital that does these all the time (meaning a dozen or more a year), the mortality rate is down to 1-3% from the surgery. If done at a place that doesn't do it a lot, it's more like the rates from thirty years ago, 15%.
Looking forward to Trevor Devall's Broken Empires which will be a simulationist fantasy RPG that is D100 based. I hope the setting will scratch that itch that Glorantha failed to do.
It sounds like folks are conflating using percentile dice with making checks where the target varies with the skill but not the task. I'm fine with the former, but not the latter.
Quote from: Mishihari on August 13, 2024, 01:32:03 PMmaking checks where the target varies with the skill but not the task.
I am unaware of any system, d100 or otherwise, that has no difficulty adjustment for dice rolls. Got an example?
There is nothing inherently wrong about a d100 system. As long as you roll it with two icosahedrons marked 0-9 twice. Those weird non-Platonic solids have no place at a gaming table.
Quote from: Theory of Games on August 10, 2024, 12:26:41 PM1% chance of rolling a 100 on 1d100. 5% chance of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Plus d100 always roll off the table and then ya gotta find em.
.46% chance of rolling an 18 in a 3d6 system. More granular.
Way too many fumbles and critical hits in d20 system.
Quote from: David Johansen on August 09, 2024, 09:56:14 PMQuote from: Jaeger on August 09, 2024, 06:02:45 PMLargely because Rune Quest wasn't D&D.
So, ducks?
Ducks are back!
(https://speedroling.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Rules-Cover.jpg)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 13, 2024, 02:33:21 AMconsequences of those rolls.
Thief skills in AD&D are comically bad. As explained in the book, you're usually better off with a fighter using a 10' pole to poke around. His chance to sneak around isn't much worse either.
[/quote]
The climb skill at 80% and a +20% to backstab attacks (on top of the initial surprise bonus) are the two abilities a new, young thief needs to utilize to survive and gain loot/levels until some of the other skills catch up, or figure out how to enhance abilities sooner..., but yeah, hiding and moving quietly, etc. are very low and are better off ignored until percentages increase. Or shit is desperate. Climbing to escape is sometimes an option in dire circumstances. Which are all the time for the young thief.
Quote from: Hixanthrope on August 13, 2024, 01:46:13 PMQuote from: Mishihari on August 13, 2024, 01:32:03 PMmaking checks where the target varies with the skill but not the task.
I am unaware of any system, d100 or otherwise, that has no difficulty adjustment for dice rolls. Got an example?
AD&D thief skills, from personal experience. Various others cited above based on the arguments presented.
"that's a ridiculous idea, who would do that?"
aaaaaand it's adnd.
Quote from: Lynn on August 13, 2024, 02:15:04 AMQuote from: JeremyR on August 13, 2024, 01:14:40 AMQuote from: Lynn on August 12, 2024, 01:27:14 AMI wasn't into Runequest when it appeared, but I played and ran CoC from what it was first available. Players were less keen about starting with low % skills (and many started quite low in CoC) as the assumption was that if you failed the roll, the result was always a functional fail. In D&D, most of the early thief skills that used % were low, and players didn't relish the consequences of those rolls.
This is what bugs me about d100% systems, characters are basically so incredibly incompetent. A surgeon might have a skill of 55% and that means he kills 45% of the people he operates on. You can add difficulties, but it doesn't scale that well compared to the original skill %
It just doesn't make any sense. If someone is competent, then performing a task in a 'normal' amount of time, with the 'normal' tools should simply be a success. A risk of failure should happen though, under not normal conditions.
It took me a while to learn this when I started to run CoC/DG for my daughters, and then morph that into our Traveller game. A failed roll does not always mean a failure, it reflects the time needed to secede or triggering any secondary/tertiary issues.
CoC/DG - they HAVE to find the clues for the adventure to progress. Roll the check - pass good to go they find it (a hard or extreme even better they get more info or something that will help later [a key with a tag 231 on it, and then they find out that the bad guy has a storage locker in a facility with 1 - 300 ... I wonder what that key is for ????)
A fail, they still get the clue, but it takes longer (now make some stealth checks etc to keep from getting caught) &/or they leave evidence they were there searching, so now the bad guy knows they are being investigated and are now more careful (so future checks are harder etc)
Quote from: Tod13 on August 13, 2024, 09:36:25 AMSorry, this isn't quite what is being talked about but it made me think of this real-life example.
The interesting part is if you try to model things like a Whipple procedure for Pancreatic Cancer. They take half the pancreas and move all the internal organs away, to delay invasion if it reoccurs.
When done in a hospital that does these all the time (meaning a dozen or more a year), the mortality rate is down to 1-3% from the surgery. If done at a place that doesn't do it a lot, it's more like the rates from thirty years ago, 15%.
Some games do have 'extended tests' where there are multiple rolls, one for each step.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 13, 2024, 02:33:21 AMThief skills in AD&D are comically bad. As explained in the book, you're usually better off with a fighter using a 10' pole to poke around. His chance to sneak around isn't much worse either.
Given how fatal a botched result can be (at 1st level) it really made me wonder.
You don't need multiple rolls in that example. "Experienced team, +10% to skill," gives you the same odds without the trouble of multiple rolls.
Over on the RPGPub they were discussing the whiff factor in rpgs, which pretty commonly happens with percentile systems - it doesn't have to, it's just how they're often designed. X rolls to attack, Y rolls to parry, whiff. But if you want to swap a roll for a chart you can do so, eg X has 50% Sword, Y has 70% Dodge, the chance of a successful Sword roll followed by failed Dodge is 50% x (100-70)% = 50% x 30% = 15%. You can put all that on a chart and there you go. D&D does this indirectly by having you roll vs AC to hit, and having a Dexterity bonus to AC.
And all this takes me back to the probably apocryphal story of Dave Arneson running people through his first dungeon, and at first the combat rules were "roll d6, highest roll wins, the other guy dies, move on." But players found this unsatisfying, so he referred to his ironclad wargame rules and added "armor class" and "hit points". Now, if you're doing 1d6 damage and have 1d6 hit points, statistically this is exactly the same as the d6 vs d6 dice-off. But it doesn't feel the same, you have at least a chance of more than one combat round and some back-and-forth, and if you now add another rule allowing something other than fighting in the combat round, perhaps the one who's losing can parley, surrender or flee.
So there are lots of ways to get the same results statistically, but each way feels different, and each change of rules invites more changes of rules.
Another advantage of d100 systems I hadn't considered: you could give something like 3 points PER SESSION instead of writing down XP/levels, to slowly improve PCs.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 09, 2024, 06:07:37 PMThe last d% game that I really loved was Star Frontiers. Then they came out with a colored chart which firmly sent me into the Traveller camp.
Star Frontiers is what I've been playing lately. The dice were missing from the box set but I got some original Gamescience dice for it.
I love percentile systems. Roll number or less to succeed. The higher the roll without failing is the success rate if you so choose. Combat you reverse the successful roll to determine hit location also based on a %!
In my % based game that one day I may publish is called The Olde Realm. The default score is always 25%. It has 24 different SCORES.
Academic, Accuracy, Action, Brawling, Entertain, Equestrian, Healer, Intuition, Looks, Lore, Melee, Might, Occupation, Perception, Rural, Social, Stamina, Status, Stealth, Streets, Thievery, Wilderness, Will, Worship,
The Magic system was based off the eight elements. Flame, Ice, Storm, Wood, Luminance, Shadow, Spirit, Stone. and other magic off of religious doctrines of the different religions. I just revamped and hopefully simplified the magic system.
Normal characters get 50-200 points to spend. Age is a factor in the SCORES. HUGE list of background and occupations. It's a dark Industrial Swordpunk type world with giant cities, cults, factions and intrigues. I based it off and was inspired somewhat off of WHFR, Thief the Dark Project, New Weird Fiction, Renfest, Bronte Novels, World History, Ancient Rome, Mythology, Occultism, Religious History and a touch of Steampunk ect. I wrote it at a time when I was getting tired of JUST AD&D2E out there and couldn't find a copy of WHFR. Had a 12 year campaign with those developing rules.
Sadly in real life, was completely betrayed by one of my main players and part writer and have been purging the documents of any and all trace of that vile scum and turning all traces of his character into a vile betrayer who turned to bane demon worship, murdering all his order, a bunch of innocents and all accomplishments of that character into tragic burnt ruins, his name purged and forgotten except for whispered curses that he still burns in eternity for all time in the game as well, which is mostly complete.
Quote from: Eldrad on August 16, 2024, 01:08:33 AMI love percentile systems. Roll number or less to succeed. The higher the roll without failing is the success rate if you so choose. Combat you reverse the successful roll to determine hit location also based on a %!
You really should check out Broken Empires when it hits Kickstarter. It uses that system (which in my head I call blackjack percentiles) and the ones die is also your hit location die. You can burn successes/success levels to move the location or do other stunts on that hit.
Quote from: zircher on August 16, 2024, 11:01:54 AMQuote from: Eldrad on August 16, 2024, 01:08:33 AMI love percentile systems. Roll number or less to succeed. The higher the roll without failing is the success rate if you so choose. Combat you reverse the successful roll to determine hit location also based on a %!
You really should check out Broken Empires when it hits Kickstarter. It uses that system (which in my head I call blackjack percentiles) and the ones die is also your hit location die. You can burning successes/success levels to move the location or do other stunts on that hit.
Top Secret/SI.
Quote from: yosemitemike on August 12, 2024, 01:01:55 AMQuote from: jeff37923 on August 10, 2024, 11:28:57 AMSometimes that extra granularity slows down actual play. Which do you find faster? D6, d20, or d100 roll mechanics?
I haven't found that the type of die used, by itself, has any noticeable effect on the speed of play. What slows down play is systems that require the players to read the dice in odd ways and/or to read multiple dice and interpret the results.
(https://gifdb.com/images/high/winner-standing-ovation-td6hc9bfl931x2xk.gif)
Quote from: DocJones on August 13, 2024, 02:40:31 PMQuote from: Theory of Games on August 10, 2024, 12:26:41 PM1% chance of rolling a 100 on 1d100. 5% chance of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Plus d100 always roll off the table and then ya gotta find em.
.46% chance of rolling an 18 in a 3d6 system. More granular.
Way too many fumbles and critical hits in d20 system.
Crits of all kinds are more common with DnD BUT, they make the game more interesting than the vapid failure associated with d100.
I have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.
Indeed I prefer stats that are noted in the single digits. Like, I prefer if skills are noted as Novice/None, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. Anything more granular is just numbers for the sake of numbers to me.
The problem comes in when you try to handle progression. Small numbers doesn't give a lot of room for progression unless you use convoluted XP systems and carefully manage it so it doesn't feel too fast or too slow.
To be entirely honest, I wonder whether progression systems were even a good idea to begin with.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMTo be entirely honest, I wonder whether progression systems were even a good idea to begin with.
I think they are.
There are reasons against. You don't need progression if you want to do similar adventures for a long time. It can change the nature of the game, which may be unwanted, e.g. D&D is very different at low, mid, and high levels. And it can add otherwise unneeded complexity to design and play.
On the other hand, the reasons to have it are pretty compelling. Getting better at stuff feels great and so does your character getting better at stuff, even if the latter is an imaginary counterfeit of the former. If there's not progress towards a larger goal, a game starts to feel pointless, and character progression is pretty easy to implement as a goal. And you may want the nature of the game to change to keep interest. As an example I stopped reading DragonballZ after I discovered that it was an endless cycle of encounter a threat, get beaten, train hard, beat the threat, repeating on an ever larger stage. Boring.
Overall having progression is better than not having it, but not having it is a legitimate design choice that should be made for a particular game after weighing the pros and cons.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMI have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.
D20 roll-under is solid, serviceable mechanic. However, player's love to shout out "NAT 20!" when the die rolls a 20 and expect goodness. Fighting that is an uphill battle.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMIndeed I prefer stats that are noted in the single digits. Like, I prefer if skills are noted as Novice/None, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. Anything more granular is just numbers for the sake of numbers to me.
You lost me there. 1 to 5 is the minimum skill range for me.
Quote from: Aglondir on August 17, 2024, 09:46:48 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMI have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.
D20 roll-under is solid, serviceable mechanic. However, player's love to shout out "NAT 20!" when the die rolls a 20 and expect goodness. Fighting that is an uphill battle.
I dunno, when I ran Dragon Warriors (which is roll under on a d20 for most mechanics), it seemed like my players were just as pumped for the critical on a natural 1.
Quote from: Aglondir on August 17, 2024, 09:46:48 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMI have to echo the point that any smaller than 5% isn't noticeable to players. So I prefer roll under d20.
D20 roll-under is solid, serviceable mechanic. However, player's love to shout out "NAT 20!" when the die rolls a 20 and expect goodness. Fighting that is an uphill battle.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 17, 2024, 10:04:33 AMIndeed I prefer stats that are noted in the single digits. Like, I prefer if skills are noted as Novice/None, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. Anything more granular is just numbers for the sake of numbers to me.
You lost me there. 1 to 5 is the minimum skill range for me.
For me it depends on the size of the randomizer. For a d20 even a +5 barely rises above the statistical variance of rolling two dice and using the better result.
Generally a minimum range for me is half the dice size... for a d20 you need modifers of at least +10 from various sources (attribute + skill + misc.).
I have considered roll under 1d6. Ability scores would range from 1 (clinically disabled) to 5 (peak of human potential), while skills would range from -2 (untrained) to +1 (master). Difficulty would range from 1 (trivially easy) to 5 (nigh-impossible). To get the threshold number, simply add Ability score + skill modifier, then subtract the Difficulty value.
Quote from: Chris24601 on August 18, 2024, 08:50:01 AMGenerally a minimum range for me is half the dice size... for a d20 you need modifers of at least +10 from various sources (attribute + skill + misc.).
Chris,
Yeah, totally agree. When I said "1-5 skill range" I meant skill ranks only. For D20, I think the minimum total range is atts 1-5 + skills 1-5 plus mods (your 1 to 10 idea.) Actually atts 1-5 and skills 1-10 works better I think. Or skills 1-20 if you want to have a more epic game (which I don't.)
Do you think Atts 1-5 + Skills 1-5 will work with a 2d6 mechanic? Maybe keep the range but shift the numbers to: atts -2 to 2 and skills 0 to 4 (close to MongTrav).