Quote from: SettembriniThat´s true. but psyche is the larger godess in that arena.

Show me a GM who asks for your exact margin of failure in a roll-under precentage environment.

Me.  I always checked to see how much they succeeded or failed by, in any system.  It lets me determine how well they succeeded or screwed up.

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s true. but psyche is the larger godess in that arena.

Show me a GM who asks for your exact margin of failure in a roll-under precentage environment.

Actually, set, in gurps 4e there are rules to cover the effect of your exact margain of failure, so, um, looks like you take another headshot in this thread. Would you like it to the right or left side, or in the front or back?

Roll over vs. roll under is totally irellevant here. In a roll over system the disadvantageous mods are subtracted to your roll, in roll unders they are  added. No effective difference in actual effect.

As to gurps mechanics, I happen to like the way that the odds of a critical success or failure are not fixed but vary within limits based on the individual's skill and other circumstances.

Basically, lower skilled people have greater chances of a critical failure and lesser chances of a critical success. The reverse is true for more skilld people, which is exactly as it should be.

Also, a d20 gives a flat probability curve, with each result being as likely as any other. A 3d6 system gives a probability curve that keeps extreme results, like 3's and 18's, from occuring as often as a typical result of 10.

I believe I covered my objection to roll-under with the 'can't get excited about rolling a 1' statement.

Additionally, is Iridium the Hinterwelt house system? 'cause man, roll under...you're killing me! I want Romans in lion-drawn chariots fighting the servants of the immortal Han emperor! I want...whatever Nebuleon's about, maybe plasma weapons or something! Roll under! Noooooo! :hissyfit: I'll still get them, of course.

QuoteMe. I always checked to see how much they succeeded or failed by, in any system. It let me determine how well they succeeded or screwed up.

Was it a concious decision to do that?

Quote from: Christmas ApeI believe I covered my objection to roll-under with the 'can't get excited about rolling a 1' statement.

Additionally, is Iridium the Hinterwelt house system? 'cause man, roll under...you're killing me! I want Romans in lion-drawn chariots fighting the servants of the immortal Han emperor! I want...whatever Nebuleon's about, maybe plasma weapons or something! Roll under! Noooooo! :hissyfit: I'll still get them, of course.

Christmas ape, you ignorant moron,  a roll under does not have to involve a d20,  where rolling a 1 is nothing to get excited over as is happens 5% of the time, exactly as often as a 20 occurs.

On a 3d6 system a minimum result (3) occurs once in every 216 rolls, meaning you can go several game sessions without it happening, thus making it a rare and special event.

Not "special" in the same sense you are, of course.

Consider the differences between a d20 and a 3d6 system:

Assume that the average player rolls, say, 20 times in a game session (5x per hour of a 4 hour session, not unreasonable.) he will, using a d20, get a 1 and a 20 on average every session.

Now....

assume the same game in played with gurps, using 3d6 rolls. rolling 20x per session, the average player will see a critical success "3" ONCE in about 21 game sessions, and a critical failure "18" in every 21 or so game sessions.

That makes crits a very rare and special event in a system bases on 3d6, whether or not it;s roll over or under.

You're right that rolling a 1 on d20 is nothing to get excited over where it will happen every session on average, but rolling a 3 on 3d6 is much rarer and makes it more noteworthy.

(PS, just justifiably going off on CA in re to all the times he's attacked me in posts.)

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s true. but psyche is the larger godess in that arena.

Show me a GM who asks for your exact margin of failure in a roll-under precentage environment.

 I also ask for the margin of success number .

  Actually my question is usually a variation of "How much did you make it by ?"  or "Just how gloriously did you succed?"

 If they blow the roll and its more of a failure I ask somethjing like "How much did you miss it by ? "  "Do the other characters need to get a doctor for you  or start laying down cover fire ?"


- Ed C.

Then again, Koltar, my fatbearded internet buddy, you are an exemption t the rule. Which makes you a better GM, but doesn´t take one dry ounce off my argument.

I ask them how much they made or failed it by, too. If you talk to actual GURPS GMs over on the SJGames forum, you'll find that most do so.

I don't know why that matters to you, or what that has to do with roll under vs roll over, but they do in fact ask after what the game calls "margin of success" or "margin of failure."

I disagree with you Settembrini. We have been playing in the same GURPS Fantasy Campaign Setting for going on 20yrs and it shows no signs of ending soon.


Respectfully

QM

Quote from: C.W.RichesonNot a lot to talk about then, since the vast majority of statements about RPGs are backed up only with personal experience and opinion.

Nothing wrong with tales of personal experience. Stating personal opinion as fact is unscientific and does nothing to advance an argument one way or the other. That's why they invented forumspeak like "IMO". :hehe:

QuoteWhy not share your experiences and talk about how they differ (or not) instead of pointing out the lack of serious evidence one way or the other?

I believe there is an example of my personal experiences in my earlier post. Clearly labelled as such, I might add. :keke:

RuneQuest clearly values the degree of success or failure. The system includes criticals (up to 5% of chance of success), specials (up to 20%) and fumbles (up to 5% of chance of failure). That's more granularity than I've seen in any roll-over systems I have experience with. Again, the over/under argument is irrelevant here (except in so far as over&under shotguns are clearly superior to side-by-side :guns: ), because whether or not degree of success or failure matters depends on the individual system.

Now then, onto another point raised more recently: bell curves versus straight-line probability. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Bell curves give you a bigger range for a given number of dice. Staight line probabilities are instinctive and easy to apply in situations not explicitly covered by the rules. :stirthepot:

You know the old saying "I'd rather push a chevy than drive a ford?" Well, I'd rather read gurps than play d20.

I'd rather you read GURPS then play in my D&D game too.

Quote from: Christmas ApeAdditionally, is Iridium the Hinterwelt house system? 'cause man, roll under...you're killing me! I want Romans in lion-drawn chariots fighting the servants of the immortal Han emperor! I want...whatever Nebuleon's about, maybe plasma weapons or something! Roll under! Noooooo!

I'd get Hinter in here to give you details, or go to the Hinterwelt forum...I'm just getting into the system - learning it a little.

But in Iridium, there are parts that are roll over (combat), and parts that are roll under (skill checks) - at least that's the way I understand it.

As I said, I'm no expert...Hinter's the one to show you the way...

Quote from: the BromgrevNothing wrong with tales of personal experience. Stating personal opinion as fact is unscientific and does nothing to advance an argument one way or the other. That's why they invented forumspeak like "IMO". :hehe:

I guess some of us just assume other people aren't stating absolute truths when they post, and instead are sharing their opinion...