Does d00 count as d100? I like DwD Studios BareBones Fantasy. It doesn't have the huge skills list and uses combinations of attributes and "class".

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 30, 2023, 10:45:11 AM
Never played Lancer, but I downloaded the free rules and looked them over.  I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  Lancer is nothing like 4e (and that's not a bad thing).  It's far more like Shadow of the Demon Lord (down to renamed boons and banes and succeed on a 10+).  I agree that what it does is give you a tight combat system with few areas that need adjudication, and then a system for non-combat activities that leaves a lot of wiggle room.  You present this as a negative, but I think that's only true from a BRP-style mentality.  Having played lots of SotDL, I can say that there is a lot of flexibility for players to think outside the box when you don't have a ton of mechanics weighing you down, and all the GM has to do is decide which attribute, does a background apply, any boons/banes, are you 10+?  This keeps the game very smooth and flexible, and has the advantage of getting through lots of game without much rule or look up time spent.  So I think this design is a pretty big positive, actually.

Oh, I didn't mean that it's exactly like 4e. I was referencing the fact that the guy behind SotDL worked on 4e and I think said that his system was influenced heavily by it. And I'm not saying that it being like D&D 4e is a mark against it, I actually thought 4e was a fine combat game.

In my experience, having a lot of mechanics doesn't impede players thinking out of the box. I don't think it really matters for players and its more of their own personal preference, some players might prefer narrativist systems and others find them completely anemic. What having a rules to cover many situation does is provide the GM with an answer for when the players want to do something out of the box. It's especially useful when its about a technical subject that the GM is not familiar with. Having detailed rules is good for giving GMs the tools to arbitrate how the fiction of the game translates into mechanics that the players can interact it.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 30, 2023, 10:45:11 AM
I think these paragraphs are almost self-contradictory.  Part of the complaint against meta-currencies is that they allow the player a hand in shaping the outcome of their actions beyond what is traditional for an RPG.  This is, admittedly, a matter of taste. 

I agree, I personally don't like meta-narrative mechanics in the game and just prefer to keep things within the traditional framework of an RPG. I feel that it interrupts the flow of play when the player invalidates their own roll because they didn't like the result.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 30, 2023, 10:45:11 AM
Differing levels of success rubs close to this problem, especially in systems where the player is encouraged to "help" determine what the levels of success mean (and I'm talking specifically out of combat).  I haven't played a BRP-derived system in decades, so I honestly don't remember if it applies to that game rules-as-written, but I seem to remember that being part of what my GM did.  So that's one issue.

The other is the same issue that FFG's Star Wars games always had for us: sometimes you just want to succeed or fail, dammit!  Levels of success always leave you feeling like you got cheated on a roll if you don't get the best outcome; you can "succeed" all night but never get the really "good" result for anything.  Now, this is more pronounced in the newer "Yes, but..." style games, so it's not as bad in this system.  But there's still a psychological hurdle that you rolled well enough to succeed, but still missed out on something cool (it's actually a serious issue with any system that gatekeeps cool abilities behind "critical" successes, and one of my few criticisms of SotDL).

Either way, I don't think your explanations of the system really did much to address the post you were responding to, at least in terms of the mechanical issues they didn't like.  But that's more a matter of taste, really...

BRP-derived games have three different types of rolls for different situations: Simple Rolls, Opposed Rolls and Differential Rolls. Simple Rolls are just binary Pass/Fail, without dealing with levels of success. So it already deals with the issue you have with it. Opposed Roll are also binary Pass/Fail, but you compare your result to an opponent opposing you and the better roll wins. The Tiers of Success are only used in the Differential Roll, which is mostly for combat or for non-combat actions during combat. That psychological hurdle of missing out on something cool isn't a problem of BRP. BRP doesn't gatekeep cool abilities behind critical successes, but it does gatekeep effectiveness of those abilities. And in combat, it absolutely makes sense that you opponent would be trying to reduce the effect of your abilities. I hope this explains it a lot better.

Like you said, this is really a matter of taste between Simulation vs Narrative mindsets for RPGs. I definitely feel like a simulationist stepping into a nest of narrativist gamers.

Quote from: Colin Conn on November 13, 2023, 10:37:03 AM
I spent half of 2023 trying out a deluge of d100 systems (Basic Roleplaying, Delta Green, RuneQuest, Mythras, and Eclipse Phase) and sold them all after the honeymoon phase. I cannot get over the following:

• Large skill lists in the 50+ range that don't center on the game's core activities.
• All modifiers are divisible by 5; thus, why are we not using a d20?
• The need for meta-currency tricks like flipping the results: 100 becomes one after spending a Luck point.
• Five-tiered outcomes and the need for a lookup table to get the math and modifiers right.

Bros, am I missing something about these systems, or did the game design just sour over the years?

I played RQ in the 80s. There was no meta-currency, that's something new.
They didn't use d20 because that was D&D's thing and because as pointed out earlier d100 is intuitive.
RQ2 they had 3 tiers of success (Critic Hit, Impale/Slash/Crush, and Hit) and 2 tiers of fail (Fumble and miss). The Impale/Slash/Crush was the 20% of what was needed to hit and could get confusing so I suspect it was dropped for the 3rd edition.

I have found the large list of skills was never a problem and I've never understood the complaints about skills because they don't match my groups experience. Also you generally aren't dungeon crawling (except in Mythic Fantasy based on Mythras) so you need a skill list that covers a lot of possibilities. It would suck to have a skill system that didn't cover obvious things.

Lastly although the doubles system is nice, Harnmaster had a system that was pretty slick. If the roll ended in 5 or 0 it was a critical. If it was a hit then it was a critical hit, if it was a miss it was a fumble. So you didn't need a table, if difficulty meant turned your 40 to hit into a 50 to hit a roll of 45 or 50 moved from being a fumble to being a critical.

Meta-currencies pop because people enjoy flat probabilities. But they also enjoy Big Damn Hero moments, and more importantly, they enjoy campaign continuity. So flat probability systems let you take your lumps and you get your jollies, but the meta-currency is a kind of deus ex machina to deal with the probabilistic likelihood that in the long run, characters in such systems will fail, die, and so forth.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 09, 2024, 07:48:14 PM
Meta-currencies pop because people enjoy flat probabilities. But they also enjoy Big Damn Hero moments, and more importantly, they enjoy campaign continuity. So flat probability systems let you take your lumps and you get your jollies, but the meta-currency is a kind of deus ex machina to deal with the probabilistic likelihood that in the long run, characters in such systems will fail, die, and so forth.

Or, meta-currencies developed as RPGs changed in focus from rewarding player skill to focusing on universal mechanics.  When players trusted very little to the dice because of a focus on strategy, logistics, and preparation, meta-currencies aren't necessary.  Only when the game becomes about using the combat rules in a regularized and systematic way do the dice and probabilities rule to the point that you need to be "saved" from them.

Actually, it was always the same challenge. By the time you make three saves vs. poison, at 90% chance of success at each, your chance of survival is only 72.9%. If you started with a 60% chance (say, 9 or better), your chances are 21.6%.

If you have 8 hit points and get hit for 1d8 damage, you have a 12.5% chance of doing down with every single hit. If you have 25 points, and you get hit for 1d12+2 hit points, with a 1 in 20 chance of a crit for double damage, you have a 1 out of 120 chance of going down with every single attack.

If you have an 88% chance to climb a sheer surface, and you climb three surfaces, you have only a 68% chance of not falling.

Multiply by the number challenges per session, the number of sessions per module, the number of modules across a character's career, and it becomes clear that the numbers are against you.

I have occasionally reflected on the length of many campaigns in the old days, and two things become quickly clear. First, a lot involved a revolving cast replacing dead characters in the party, particularly if resurrection was difficult or expensive at that time. Second, I think I have to believe most campaigns involved a fair amount of cheating. People making their own meta-currency.

Spider-Man had a 1% chance of being killed any time you shot at him with a gun, in the old Marvel Super-Heroes. Unless you happen to have 100 Karma on hand, Spider-Man is toast.

QuoteLastly although the doubles system is nice, Harnmaster had a system that was pretty slick. If the roll ended in 5 or 0 it was a critical. If it was a hit then it was a critical hit, if it was a miss it was a fumble. So you didn't need a table, if difficulty meant turned your 40 to hit into a 50 to hit a roll of 45 or 50 moved from being a fumble to being a critical.

I strongly concur with this. I´v personally gamed for 30ish years with all kinds of systems and I always go back to d100 rule systems because they are very intuitive. If you have a skill of 60%, that basically means that you have 60% chance to succeed (if you don´t count the modifiers) I personally do not get the same feel with other kinds of systems.

I´v heard d100 systems referred to as "skill based system", where the skills are more important than the attributes in conflict resolution and I agree with it. I currently GM solely with HarnMaster 3rd edition, however I also love Rolemaster, Middle-Earth (and the variants) and Basic Roleplay in CoC, but not so much in current Runequest Glorantha, too many variables. HarnMaster looks crunchy though it ain´t, it is very smooth and quick when you learn it and it is extremely easy to port it to any (non-modern) setting, I´v noticed. In Rolemaster, Middle-Earth etc. I do not like the level system and the million charts are a hassle, but managable. HarnMaster does not have neither of those.  Also, firefights are a hassle in Basic Roleplay, otherwise I love it. HarnMaster also has the same mechanic for every kind of situation, which I really like especially since I cannot be arsed to learn a new system for each setting.

I've worked on "skills-based systems" before that have very little to do with a GURPSian or BRP approach. Anything that can increase with experience can be a "skill." Firearms can be a skill, climbing can be a skill, lifting. In a D&D type setting, hit points can be a skill.

Quote from: Angry Goblin on February 08, 2024, 04:37:15 AM

I´ve personally gamed for 30ish years with all kinds of systems and I always go back to d100 rule systems because they are very intuitive. If you have a skill of 60%, that basically means that you have 60% chance to succeed (if you don´t count the modifiers) I personally do not get the same feel with other kinds of systems.

I think there's more to add to this. I agree its intuitive, but these two factors are what secured my preference for the d100: 1. Transparency - an identity between your actual chance and the way the game represents that tells the players that they can confidently make decisions with predictable outcomes. Personally, I like it when my players play smart, but playing smart with inscrutable odds is rather hard to define. This transparency can encourage smart play. 2. Time saving - I find that when I play games with other dice systems like 6s, 20s, dice pools, etc. I end up doing mental math to figure out my chances before doing most things. If there's this bolded value called CHANCE which is practically identical to my actual chances I have to do much less of that!