TheRPGSite

An issue that arises with many games is a insignificant difference at low degrees of ability. For example, if there are two small creatures in a d20 game, one with Str 1, and the other with Str 3, then the second creature has a +1 against the first; but this is strange, because the second creature is three times stronger than the first. Giving out modifiers at like this is fine at human levels, where 10-11 is the average and a two point difference isn't that big of a deal, but at the low end of the scale, it becomes very counter-intuitive.

Would it not be agreeable to make chance of success based on proportion rather than difference? So the functional distinction between two opposed characters with 2 and 6 attributes would be 1:3 rather than +4? It may or may  not be a difficult proposition to fulfill without resorting to chart look-ups. Forgive me if my terminology is off.

Are there any games that already do that (or do that well)?

DC Heroes (aka MEGS; rereleased as Blood of Heroes) does this fairly well - though as an over-the-top superhero game "very small" in DC Heroes is a human-level attribute and it scales up insanely from there (a normal human is Str 2; Batman is Str 5; Wonder Woman is Str 16; Superman is Str 25, and each point roughly doubles the character's lifting capacity--+10 points is x1000). It does use charts, though - I don't especially recommend it as a supers system.

Other than that, note that die pool games (like Storyteller or Shadowrun) inherently generate a # successes that are a proportion of the die pool (depending on the target number). However, these don't necessarily do a great job for the lower stats, just because they're so granular - 1 dot in Storyteller has to represent everything from the village idiot (hello!) to dogs, cats and possibly fish.

Quote from: The Worid;389035For example, if there are two small creatures in a d20 game, one with Str 1, and the other with Str 3, then the second creature has a +1 against the first; but this is strange, because the second creature is three times stronger than the first.

I think I kind of see what you are saying, but D&D is a bad example.  The stats aren't really linear like that, except for their own scale.  A Strength of 6 is better than a Strength of 3, but a Strength of 18 is not three times better than a Strength of 6.  The scores don't correlate directly to mechanics.

Quote from: StormBringer;389145I think I kind of see what you are saying, but D&D is a bad example.  The stats aren't really linear like that, except for their own scale.  A Strength of 6 is better than a Strength of 3, but a Strength of 18 is not three times better than a Strength of 6.  The scores don't correlate directly to mechanics.

My books haven't been sent down from Wisconsin yet, but didn't 1st or 2nd edition AD&D have weights listed by Strength score? I swear I plotted it out back in the day and found that the curve wasn't regular.

I'm actually visualising the red and green lines of the chart I think I made.

Edit: My offering towards this is the scale in Fudge. It's a bit redundant, IMHO, as 1 pt of scale equals +1 strength or its equivalent, but it works, and points the way towards a scale that would be more useful for large differences.

Similarly having 100,020 strength is VASTLY better than having 100,000 strength not just a rounding error. Stats not being proportional like this is the biggest flaw in d20, which means the game breaks down unless stats stay within a certain band (i.e. E6) or the game artificially yokes stats together so that they all advance at the same rate (i.e. 4ed).

To clarify: I'm not talking about the way you get only +1 per two points of an ability score in d20. My criticism applies to, well, any system that I can think of (and can claim to understand the math behind). So, the Fudge scale suffers from the same issue: 1 vs. 2 is a +1 difference, but 3 vs. 6 is a +3 difference, even though in terms of proportions, they should be the same.

What I'm looking for is a system in which there is a certain chance of success on 1 vs. 2, and that chance is the same for 2 vs. 4, 3 vs. 6, and so on. Or, failing that, a good workaround like some form of scale shifting, but that's not the primary goal.

Quote from: The Worid;389156To clarify: I'm not talking about the way you get only +1 per two points of an ability score in d20. My criticism applies to, well, any system that I can think of (and can claim to understand the math behind). So, the Fudge scale suffers from the same issue: 1 vs. 2 is a +1 difference, but 3 vs. 6 is a +3 difference, even though in terms of proportions, they should be the same.

What I'm looking for is a system in which there is a certain chance of success on 1 vs. 2, and that chance is the same for 2 vs. 4, 3 vs. 6, and so on. Or, failing that, a good workaround like some form of scale shifting, but that's not the primary goal.

Hmmmmm, Burning Wheel and d6 sound like they do what you like pretty exactly and ORE does it more or less as well although the probability curve isn't so smooth.

As far as FUDGE while it breaks down with big numbers +2 isn't supposed to be twice as good as +1 since 0 is the average human ability, so a zero in a score does not indicate zero ability. The scores in FUDGE indicate deviation from average ability not absolute ability.

Quote from: Daztur;389153Similarly having 100,020 strength is VASTLY better than having 100,000 strength not just a rounding error. Stats not being proportional like this is the biggest flaw in d20, which means the game breaks down unless stats stay within a certain band (i.e. E6) or the game artificially yokes stats together so that they all advance at the same rate (i.e. 4ed).

What's wrong with Str scores following an exponential progression, exactly ??
From memory, I think you'll find that +10 Strength is x4 lifting capacity in D20 - from Strength 20 up.  
So, for higher strength scores it does exactly what The World wants - someone four times as strong as you are gets +5 on Strength checks against you and so their chance of winning an opposed Str roll against you is consistent.
+5 probably isn't really enough bonus on d20 to represent that magnitude of difference IMHO, but that's probably a separate problem.

Quote from: Daztur;389157Hmmmmm, Burning Wheel and d6 sound like they do what you like pretty exactly and ORE does it more or less as well although the probability curve isn't so smooth.

Does Burning Wheel actually work like that? I've fiddled with AnyDice for a while trying to figure it out, but it didn't look like it did. Anyone good with statistics?

Quote from: Daztur;389157As far as FUDGE while it breaks down with big numbers +2 isn't supposed to be twice as good as +1 since 0 is the average human ability, so a zero in a score does not indicate zero ability. The scores in FUDGE indicate deviation from average ability not absolute ability.

Well, yes, which is exactly the same as d20 in which +0 is human average. My point is that I'd rather it not work like that, for several reasons. Among them is that I would like the ability to add together the more than one statistic (such as Str+Dex) or the efforts of more than one person into a single check, and have the result be equivalent to having rolled individually.

What you should be looking at then is a game that uses percentiles for success rates because then someone with a 50% chance of success is exactly twice as good as someone with a 25% and someone with a 10% is 10 times better then someone with 1%.

Quote from: kryyst;389434What you should be looking at then is a game that uses percentiles for success rates because then someone with a 50% chance of success is exactly twice as good as someone with a 25% and someone with a 10% is 10 times better then someone with 1%.

Excellent point.

At the risk of bringing Pundy into the thread, diceless could, of course, do that.

Quote from: Daztur;389153Similarly having 100,020 strength is VASTLY better than having 100,000 strength not just a rounding error. Stats not being proportional like this is the biggest flaw in d20, which means the game breaks down unless stats stay within a certain band (i.e. E6) or the game artificially yokes stats together so that they all advance at the same rate (i.e. 4ed).

I failed to point it out before, but this is a really good example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: kryyst;389434What you should be looking at then is a game that uses percentiles for success rates because then someone with a 50% chance of success is exactly twice as good as someone with a 25% and someone with a 10% is 10 times better then someone with 1%.

That's tautological. Of course it works out when you set the percentages to be perfect, but the math behind a percentile system isn't anything special. It's just inverted d20 math; if you tried to roll under your stat on a d20, it's the same as using percentile dice, except that it goes in 5% increments (which percentile games tend to do anyways). Actually, BRP does do what I want: but only through the use of the resistance table, and I'd rather not do table references in the middle of a game.

Quote from: The Worid;389035An issue that arises with many games is a insignificant difference at low degrees of ability. For example, if there are two small creatures in a d20 game, one with Str 1, and the other with Str 3, then the second creature has a +1 against the first; but this is strange, because the second creature is three times stronger than the first.

Just to nitpick: you've assumed that a Strength of 3 is three times as much as a strength of 1. That's not necessarily true. Its actually only true if you assume that the scale is linear, which for D&D Strength isn't the case - its an exponential progression. i.e. each point represents a gain of more power than the point before.

In D&D's case, that's a deliberate design choice, because a linear scale - where you add the same amount of lifting ability or whatever per point - rapidly breaks down as the numbers become huge. Say if you give a normal human a Strength of 10, and define each point of Strength as being able to lift about 10 pounds.  

Strength IRL is roughly proportional to muscle cross-section, which increases as the square of height: using this and assuming a 6' tall human base you'd get a 30' tall giant having a Strength of about 250 (notwithstanding that using real world physics they should collapse under their own weight), a 60' long dragon about 1000, and Cthulhu (100' tall) around 2500. Conversely, a halfling would have a strength of between 2 and 3 (1/2 the height of a human, so 1/4 the Strength - assuming similar muscle tone and whatnot.).  

To avoid this, the designers deliberately used an exponential scale; on an exponential scale adding a given number of points multiplies the real value of the score i.e. +10 = 16x the real world lifting capacity.
Complaining that 10,020 is heaps better than 10,000 in D&D is silly because D&D doesn't have creatures with Strength scores of 10,000. And it doesn't have Strength scores of 10,000 exactly because 10,020 is heaps better than 10,000.

That's not to say that a linear scale is necessarily bad, but there's pros and cons either way.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389700Just to nitpick: you've assumed that a Strength of 3 is three times as much as a strength of 1. That's not necessarily true. Its actually only true if you assume that the scale is linear, which for D&D Strength isn't the case - its an exponential progression. i.e. each point represents a gain of more power than the point before.

Actually going by 3.5 listings for carrying capacity, a creature with a Strength of 3 is, in fact, 3 times stronger than a creature with a Strength of 1. However, even if it wasn't, it is strange to give out linear modifiers but exponential carrying capacity values.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389700To avoid this, the designers deliberately used an exponential scale; on an exponential scale adding a given number of points multiplies the real value of the score i.e. +10 = 16x the real world lifting capacity.
Complaining that 10,020 is heaps better than 10,000 in D&D is silly because D&D doesn't have creatures with Strength scores of 10,000. And it doesn't have Strength scores of 10,000 exactly because 10,020 is heaps better than 10,000.

That's not to say that a linear scale is necessarily bad, but there's pros and cons either way.

I understand the point behind using exponential stats. It's not bad logic. However, I would prefer to use a linear scale (perhaps supplemented with a "tier-shift" mechanic for scaling) for reasons of intuitivity, as well as being able to hit the proportionality goal.

Quote from: The Worid;389716Actually going by 3.5 listings for carrying capacity, a creature with a Strength of 3 is, in fact, 3 times stronger than a creature with a Strength of 1. However, even if it wasn't, it is strange to give out linear modifiers but exponential carrying capacity values.

Yes...under 10 is where they ran of the possible numbers, and jammed in what was left...so here the table actually shifts from being exponential to being linear, and its kinda ugly. With a full-on log system it'd make sense to have "negative" Strengths but thats perhaps going too far.

For some rolls the linear modifier does makes sense. On an opposed Strength roll at least - cf my post above - your chance of making the roll is effectively based on your relative Strength is i.e. if they're 4 times as strong as you, you're at a relative -5 on the d20, while 16x as strong -10, and so on.  "Diminishing returns" is fairly plausible as well: someone 3x as strong as you isn't necessarily going to be 3x as good as climbing walls or hitting opponents. I think you're quite right in that it doesn't always make sense though - e.g. Jump checks and possibly damage rolls.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389718Yes...under 10 is where they ran of the possible numbers, and jammed in what was left...so here the table actually shifts from being exponential to being linear, and its kinda ugly. With a full-on log system it'd make sense to have "negative" Strengths but thats perhaps going too far.

Too far? Generations of HERO system players Disagree (http://mojobob.com/roleplay/hero/strength.html).

-Frank

Well...shit.
There's the definitive system for accurately handling midget vs. chicken wrestling, then. Or (more seriously), Incredible Shrinking Man vs. normal spider.

Quote from: The WoridThat's tautological. Of course it works out when you set the percentages to be perfect, but the math behind a percentile system isn't anything special. It's just inverted d20 math; if you tried to roll under your stat on a d20, it's the same as using percentile dice, except that it goes in 5% increments (which percentile games tend to do anyways). Actually, BRP does do what I want: but only through the use of the resistance table, and I'd rather not do table references in the middle of a game.

So there are plenty of options out there to do what you want you are just choosing not to use them.  Instead you are are bitching about a system that doesn't do that.  Sucks to be you.   My car doesn't fly, go figure.

Quote from: kryyst;389770So there are plenty of options out there to do what you want you are just choosing not to use them.  Instead you are are bitching about a system that doesn't do that.  Sucks to be you.   My car doesn't fly, go figure.

No, I'm saying that the option you mentioned does not, in fact, meet the criteria.

Quote from: The Worid;389156To clarify: I'm not talking about the way you get only +1 per two points of an ability score in d20. My criticism applies to, well, any system that I can think of (and can claim to understand the math behind). So, the Fudge scale suffers from the same issue: 1 vs. 2 is a +1 difference, but 3 vs. 6 is a +3 difference, even though in terms of proportions, they should be the same.

What I'm looking for is a system in which there is a certain chance of success on 1 vs. 2, and that chance is the same for 2 vs. 4, 3 vs. 6, and so on. Or, failing that, a good workaround like some form of scale shifting, but that's not the primary goal.

In almost any game with die pools based on attributes and skills, like white wolf, someone with an attribute of two is twice as good as someone with a 1.

Quote from: The Worid;389654That's tautological. Of course it works out when you set the percentages to be perfect, but the math behind a percentile system isn't anything special. It's just inverted d20 math; if you tried to roll under your stat on a d20, it's the same as using percentile dice, except that it goes in 5% increments (which percentile games tend to do anyways). Actually, BRP does do what I want: but only through the use of the resistance table, and I'd rather not do table references in the middle of a game.

It does seem like you are rejecting the solutions.  

In math terms, for any game that works by (stat + die) or die roll under stat, the result or margin of success isn't going to be proportional if the stats are on a linear scale.  They will be roughly proportional if you use a logarithmic scale for stats like HERO, DC Heroes, Torg, or Fudge.  (I say roughly because many of these systems don't use their logarithmic scale correctly in all cases, but for most purposes it is fine.)  

Any additive dice pool system like Star Wars D6 or target number dice pool like Storyteller will be proportional with a linear scale.

The reason that a strength modifier is not proportional in the way you are thinking it is because there is a base chance of success. No modifier succeeds on a DC 11 50% of the time. If you set Strength to 1 (mod -5), you succeed 25% of the time. If you set Strength to 20 (mod +5), you succeed 75% of the time.

On the other hand, with percentages, there is no base chance to succeed. Set your skill to 1 and you succeed 1% of the time. Set it to 20 and you succeed 20% of the time - twenty times more often if your value is 20 times higher. A percent system, or any roll-under system, is going to give you a linearly proportional increase in success chances as long as you don't throw modifiers into the mix.

Dice pools increase in average hits in a linearly proportional manner. But the chances of achieving success at all do not rise in that manner. One die averages 1/3 of a hit and has a 1/3 chance of succeeding at a basic task. Three dice averages 1 hit, but it only has a 21/27 chance of succeeding at a basic task.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390280The reason that a strength modifier is not proportional in the way you are thinking it is because there is a base chance of success. No modifier succeeds on a DC 11 50% of the time. If you set Strength to 1 (mod -5), you succeed 25% of the time. If you set Strength to 20 (mod +5), you succeed 75% of the time.

On the other hand, with percentages, there is no base chance to succeed. Set your skill to 1 and you succeed 1% of the time. Set it to 20 and you succeed 20% of the time - twenty times more often if your value is 20 times higher. A percent system, or any roll-under system, is going to give you a linearly proportional increase in success chances as long as you don't throw modifiers into the mix.

Dice pools increase in average hits in a linearly proportional manner. But the chances of achieving success at all do not rise in that manner. One die averages 1/3 of a hit and has a 1/3 chance of succeeding at a basic task. Three dice averages 1 hit, but it only has a 21/27 chance of succeeding at a basic task.

Good point.  Though it isn't clear what proportionality refers to.  The OP noted that one character is twice as strong as another.  That probably means that the average result of their strength (like how much they can bench press) is twice as great.  It isn't clear that this means they have twice the chance of success at a given strength-related task.  

Regarding percentile systems - it's worth noting that the James Bond 007 system has modifiers to the multiplicative "Ease Factor" instead of linear modifiers.  So a difficult task might be multiplier 2 instead of multiplier 5, whereas another percentile system might say something like "-25%".  So that system is a little more proportional than other linear roll-under systems.

Re-reading the initial post it may be that the OP is after "proportionality" between the character and an opposing force - the example uses Strength so e.g. an opposed Strength contest he wants something like Strength X vs. Strength Y = X/[X+Y] chance of success.
Die pool systems do give results that are proportional to the statistic, but overall chance of success on an opposed roll doesn't necessarily relate to the above? I've seen the ratio itself used directly in something that might possibly be called an RPG (You Stupid Bitch (http://evilbobdayjob.tripod.com/ysb.html)). I can't see this being practical for running every game function in a system, however.

Quote from: Daztur;389157Hmmmmm, Burning Wheel and d6 sound like they do what you like pretty exactly and ORE does it more or less as well although the probability curve isn't so smooth.

It's been a long time since I've played d6 Star Wars, but I don't think you quite understand what he means here.

If I remember correctly the d6 system instead worked by using a dice pool, so if two characters were performing an opposed test as the OP describes they would both roll their dice pools against each other and the higher would win.

This is a fairly different mechanic from the one the OP suggests, since rolling 6 dice against someone who rolls 3 dice does not produce a particularly similar distribution of results to  to rolling 10 dice against someone who rolls 5 - specifically, if you keep the ratio the same while increasing the number of dice on both sides the person with fewer dice becomes less and less likely to succeed. Someone rolling 1 die might beat someone rolling 2 some of the time, but someone rolling 100 will almost never beat someone rolling 200.

Quote from: Cranewings;390108In almost any game with die pools based on attributes and skills, like white wolf, someone with an attribute of two is twice as good as someone with a 1.

But a person with an attribute of 4 is MORE than twice as good as someone with an attribute of 2 - or at least, will win opposed tests against them more than 2 times out of 3, which is what the OP would desire for stats having a 1:2 ratio.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;390292Die pool systems do give results that are proportional to the statistic, but overall chance of success on an opposed roll doesn't necessarily relate to the above?

The problem is that while the average number of successes (and the ratio between the average number of successes of the two participants) will scale proportioanlly, the distribution changes. Basically, someone rolling more dice is much more likely to roll their average number of successes (or close to it) than someone rolling less dice.

Well in an opposed roll you want the guy with twice the strength to win all the time becuase they are twice as strong. Unless you think that you could outlift an olympic weightlifter 1 time in 3 ?
In a linear scale you need to exclude stuff that starts with less than 1 strength/intel/dex etc if you don't then the scale you have will be a range of 1 - 1000 and all the humans will be in the 300-304 range which is daft so instead you take the range and you focus on the 'human' section of the range and you take that as your scale. So 300 = 1 and 304 = 20 and you slice the rest up in the gap.

Then you need to look at stats like Strength and work out what that means. Personally, I want strength to be mussle and you multiply that by weight to get how much you can shift and what your damage is. So a hobbit might have 18 strength and a giant might have 12, but to work out how much they can lift and their damage bonus you include their size. This has the added advantage of meaning that the range for strength can occupy the same linear range as that for intelligence or charisma so your stats all work the same way in play.

Quote from: bombshelter13;390489But a person with an attribute of 4 is MORE than twice as good as someone with an attribute of 2 - or at least, will win opposed tests against them more than 2 times out of 3, which is what the OP would desire for stats having a 1:2 ratio.

Personally, I thing they don't win enough.

If a blue belt in brazillian jujitsu wrestles another guy of equal skill who can bench press twice as much, like 200 vs. 400, he will almost never win.

Someone the can run a 10 minute mile will never out run someone with a 6 minute mile.

Quote from: jibbajibba;390496Well in an opposed roll you want the guy with twice the strength to win all the time becuase they are twice as strong. Unless you think that you could outlift an olympic weightlifter 1 time in 3 ?

I believe the idea proposed by the OP would give a different meaning to the numbers. In his system, having a stat twice as high as your opponents doesn't mean you are 'twice as strong' (or whatever the stat in question is), but means literally that you win 2 out of 3 times.

The amount that can be lifted by a character with a Strength of 2 versus a character with a Strength of 1 is NOT represented or described by the OP's system, or at least not by the part of it in question. The only thing represented by the two numbers are their relative odds of success.

So, a Olympic weight lifter should have a far higher strength score (more than double) if he's supposed to beat the average person more than 2 times out of 3.

That means that there needs to be some other mechanic in place determining how much a given character can 'lift' or whatnot.

Well, the OP didn't quite quantify what he meant by "proportional".
Yes, using a mechanic based on the ratio I pulled out, someone 1/99th as strong as you are beats you 1% of the time.
However, the formula may very well be a misrepresentation of his position...it could use further clarification from World.


Proportionality may not go far enough but note that's still better than any number of standard systems. In the d20 Str 1 vs. Str 3 example say. something with triple the lifting capacity only gets a +1 (+5%) to their roll, thanks to how the encumbrance system shifts from exponential to irregular at the lower end.

Of course if you're really only worried about very low stats and you don't want exact proportionality, you could just rejigger the bonus table in d20. I know someone who dumped the standard modifier scale and just dramatically increased the penalties from about 6-down, on the grounds that these were "sub-functional" attributes.

Quote from: Cranewings;390523If a blue belt in brazillian jujitsu wrestles another guy of equal skill who can bench press twice as much, like 200 vs. 400, he will almost never win.

In this system though, stats do not translate linearly into a particular measurement, such as weight lifted: Someone with a strength of 10 doesn't necessarily lift twice as much as someone with a strength of 5.

Quote from: Cranewings;390523Personally, I thing they don't win enough.

If a blue belt in brazillian jujitsu wrestles another guy of equal skill who can bench press twice as much, like 200 vs. 400, he will almost never win.

Someone the can run a 10 minute mile will never out run someone with a 6 minute mile.

This is the entirity of the matter.
I use exactly this theory in my Amber diceless skill system. If I am substantially better than you I will always win. If we are closely matched then other variables come into play.

Sorry for the delayed response. To clarify: what I am searching for is a system in which scores progress in a linear fashion, and two attributes set in opposition to one another will have success ratios which remain constant as long as they are proportionally the same (so a 5 vs. 10 should have the same chance of success as 1 vs. 2).

So, going with the example of Strength (because it's easy to quantify), one point of it refers to a discrete amount of force one can exert. Someone with 10 Strength should, in this scheme, be able to lift twice as much as someone with 5 Strength. Moreover, the chance of the 10 Strength guy beating the 5 Strength guy at a relevant task should be the same as if a 2 Strength guy went against a 1 Strength guy. What that chance is, exactly, isn't what I'm interested in here.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390280The reason that a strength modifier is not proportional in the way you are thinking it is because there is a base chance of success. No modifier succeeds on a DC 11 50% of the time. If you set Strength to 1 (mod -5), you succeed 25% of the time. If you set Strength to 20 (mod +5), you succeed 75% of the time.

On the other hand, with percentages, there is no base chance to succeed. Set your skill to 1 and you succeed 1% of the time. Set it to 20 and you succeed 20% of the time - twenty times more often if your value is 20 times higher. A percent system, or any roll-under system, is going to give you a linearly proportional increase in success chances as long as you don't throw modifiers into the mix.

I think I follow your reasoning. Is there a way to do that that doesn't screw up when you add modifiers, or possibly a way around that issue?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390280Dice pools increase in average hits in a linearly proportional manner. But the chances of achieving success at all do not rise in that manner. One die averages 1/3 of a hit and has a 1/3 chance of succeeding at a basic task. Three dice averages 1 hit, but it only has a 21/27 chance of succeeding at a basic task.
-Frank

Perhaps one could sidestep the problem by setting up the system to always be against static numbers, like how some d20 games calculate "Defenses" as 10 plus the relevant modifiers, and roll dice pools against that.

Quote from: The Worid;390799Sorry for the delayed response. To clarify: what I am searching for is a system in which scores progress in a linear fashion, and two attributes set in opposition to one another will have success ratios which remain constant as long as they are proportionally the same (so a 5 vs. 10 should have the same chance of success as 1 vs. 2).

The simplest way to do this is probably to have a roll thats [any dice you want] x your ability score. For example, having both characters lift 3d6 pounds x STR score; compare 'lift numbers' to see who wins in an arm wrestle.

I once used a similar principle trying to get a Marvel Super Heroes variant to work without a chart; characters got a base number equal to 1/5th their stat, then multiplied by d10 and compared to the opponent's attribute as a target number (slightly favours attacker due to average on d10 being 5.5, of course).

Quote from: The Worid;390799I think I follow your reasoning. Is there a way to do that that doesn't screw up when you add modifiers, or possibly a way around that issue?

As long as your modifiers are multipliers or divisors (i.e. on an easy task your roll is doubled, on a hard task your roll is halved) then proportionality is preserved in a percentile system (barring cases where one party's chance of success reaches 100%).  But does maintaining proportionality for easier and harder tasks make sense?  I think that is the better question.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;391000The simplest way to do this is probably to have a roll thats [any dice you want] x your ability score. For example, having both characters lift 3d6 pounds x STR score; compare 'lift numbers' to see who wins in an arm wrestle.

I once used a similar principle trying to get a Marvel Super Heroes variant to work without a chart; characters got a base number equal to 1/5th their stat, then multiplied by d10 and compared to the opponent's attribute as a target number (slightly favours attacker due to average on d10 being 5.5, of course).

That may be the best method (by virtue of being the simplest); I've been considering it. Unfortunately, the only published game that I know of that uses it (so that I can see how to fit it into a system) is Maid, which is bad in both the sense that there is only one game to draw information from, and in the sense that it's Maid. :nono:

Quote from: The Worid;391597That may be the best method (by virtue of being the simplest); I've been considering it. Unfortunately, the only published game that I know of that uses it (so that I can see how to fit it into a system) is Maid, which is bad in both the sense that there is only one game to draw information from, and in the sense that it's Maid. :nono:

Bah. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (Or once)

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;392363Bah. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (Or once)

Its sometimes surprising where useful ideas turn up. I actually can't think of any other multiplicative systems either (and now I have to try to check out Maid - thanks :(  )

Another related thought would be, I can think of a couple of systems that work by taking larger numbers and then dividing both by a common factor until it fits on the standard resolution table - Forgotten Futures and JAGS (high-end armour vs. weapon damage). It does get messy in that you have large, weird, probability shifts whenever the divisor changes.


EDIT: not going to Necro the thread for this, but if anyone else likes digging through the archives see also
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=19822 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=19822)
for a 'floating dice' mechanic that would also work to give proportionality.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;392363Bah. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (Or once)

True. My general rule is that all games of any significant length (so, 7 page free online RPGs don't count) will have at least one good idea, regardless of how bad the game is.

Quote(and now I have to try to check out Maid - thanks  )

I just found another game based on multiplication: BASH!.