Quote from: GeekyBugle;1106918Thanks, I have never played with BRP, is it easy to learn?

Yes.
As long as:

(a) You understand the statement: "You have a X% of succeeding in your skill"

(b) You are happy with rolling low to succeed on percentile dice.

That's it.

• I saw a post somewhere from someone (could I get vaguer ..) who couldn't play BRP as needing to roll low on dice was wrong/alien to them.  Weird, eh! Guess it was a post-2000 d20 gamer.

Quote from: Anselyn;1107036Yes.
As long as:

(a) You understand the statement: "You have a X% of succeeding in your skill"

(b) You are happy with rolling low to succeed on percentile dice.

That's it.

• I saw a post somewhere from someone (could I get vaguer ..) who couldn't play BRP as needing to roll low on dice was wrong/alien to them.  Weird, eh! Guess it was a post-2000 d20 gamer.

I have no problem with percentages.

I much prefer rolling high systems, because it gives the impression of achievement far easier than rolling low.

Rolling high = You did it you surpassed the (task at hand) difficulty class!

Rolling low = You didn't surpass your own STR, this means you win!

From a psychological perspective the first is always better, more people will feel the dopamine rush without training, the second needs time to get used to.

That being said I have played games where you roll low before and can do it again.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107034So the system doesn't use a d20?

Nope. Maybe later editions did? Something hacked that others have posted online maybe.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107049I have no problem with percentages.

I much prefer rolling high systems, because it gives the impression of achievement far easier than rolling low.

Rolling high = You did it you surpassed the (task at hand) difficulty class!

Rolling low = You didn't surpass your own STR, this means you win!

From a psychological perspective the first is always better, more people will feel the dopamine rush without training, the second needs time to get used to.

That being said I have played games where you roll low before and can do it again.

I always prefer rolling >= a difficulty. In fact, I prefer only rolling for difficulties in games.
Not a fan of rolling <= an attribute. Not a fan of % either.

If it's a problem for you just add the roll to your skill and roll 100+  Or subtract from 100 to find what you need to roll.  It's about the easiest flip/flop every.

Quote from: David Johansen;1107073If it's a problem for you just add the roll to your skill and roll 100+  Or subtract from 100 to find what you need to roll.  It's about the easiest flip/flop every.

Unless you're playing a game like Eclipse Phase where it's "blackjack rules" meaning you want to roll as high as possible without exceeding your target number (because this determines how well you succeed). Sure, you could still flip it as you've described, but then you have to flip several thresholds too.

As I recall the rules for Ringworld had some unique difference from straight BRP, like the way the Strike Ranks worked, carrying over to the next round... and skills were organized a bit differently.

I definitely prefer roll-under paired with Margin of Success. It feels like I'm aiming for the "tightest" band possible, like I'm dogfighting and trying to pull my tracers as close to the target "zero" as possible rather than some 'arbitrary' sum. It also, to me, makes skills/attributes more meaningfully apparent; the number you are looking at simply is what it is. To me it denotes your ability in a given area more clearly than some nebulous bonus and a no-ceiling resulting number.

Then again I also prefer modifiers applied directly to those as well rather than the die roll, and I dislike "arbitrary" DC's (for lack of a better term; I realize DC's aren't really set "arbitrarily" in the truest sense of the word), so I'm probably one of the 'weird ones' in terms of my preferred mechanics.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1107236I definitely prefer roll-under paired with Margin of Success. It feels like I'm aiming for the "tightest" band possible, like I'm dogfighting and trying to pull my tracers as close to the target "zero" as possible rather than some 'arbitrary' sum. It also, to me, makes skills/attributes more meaningfully apparent; the number you are looking at simply is what it is. To me it denotes your ability in a given area more clearly than some nebulous bonus and a no-ceiling resulting number.

Then again I also prefer modifiers applied directly to those as well rather than the die roll, and I dislike "arbitrary" DC's (for lack of a better term; I realize DC's aren't really set "arbitrarily" in the truest sense of the word), so I'm probably one of the 'weird ones' in terms of my preferred mechanics.

Just as arbitrary as deciding the DC is your stat. I prefer roll >= DC but I have played and enjoyed games with Roll under mechanics.

I believe there was someone (John Wood?) working on a conversion of the Ringworld and Known Space rules to GURPS Space?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107252Just as arbitrary as deciding the DC is your stat.

Perhaps, just not in the way I think of/perceive it. More specifically I don't prefer games which convert (IMO needlessly) that stat number into a smaller, static modifier which is then applied to a roll against a given DC (eyeballed or otherwise) ala D&D and derivatives. I prefer where the stat itself is the important bit, and modifiers apply to it directly (the roll against the stat itself then becoming a 'naked' determination of success or failure). There are drawbacks to this method of course, and I agree it's primarily a question of preference rather than utility, I'm just trying to articulate why I like it.

There are lots of other versions of roll-over w/stat or skill mechanics I like better (for example D6 systems, where your stat or skill directly converts to the dice you roll then total), but purely from a taste perspective I still prefer the tactility of roll-under.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107252I prefer roll >= DC but I have played and enjoyed games with Roll under mechanics.

Yeah, I'm the opposite. I don't have anything against roll > = DC, I've enjoyed many games using that method and it's perfectly functional. If you're the type of GM to conceal target numbers, it's also more straightforward to do it in (it can be done with roll-under, but that requires you obfuscating modifiers themselves with regard to skill level which feels wrong and counter-intuitive). But again, I do like the straight-forwardness and logic behind "your target number is the one on your sheet because that's how good you are at it. Roll against that unless I tell you circumstances warrant a modifier."

Silly example to demonstrate: I hand a player a BRP sheet, they can instantly go "oh, I have a 50% chance at using this successfully." Hand a player a D&D sheet and they have... a handful of modifiers from various sources, which may or may not mean much to them, being applied to a roll and then compared to a DC which they may or may not know how to gauge properly. Obviously this example is assuming totally inexperienced players and beyond that, an uncharitable DM who might not share a DC and possibly players who can't do simple arithmetic, but that's why it's a silly example.

Though again, with systems like D6 it's more straightforward apart from the TN itself. I like the bounded nature and tactility of roll-under (again, not that I hate roll-over; just my preference).

Anyway, I feel I've pushed this pretty far off-topic so I'll quit my rambling.

Quote from: Mistwell;1107255I believe there was someone (John Wood?) working on a conversion of the Ringworld and Known Space rules to GURPS Space?

Yeah, found that, never went beyond converting a few things.

Easy, I'd use Classic Traveller for this. Fits right in. I like the Indestructible Puppeter starship hulls, The Outsiders, the Kzin, The Pak, the Tnuctipun, The Thrintun, Trinocs, and the Whrloo. Not to mention all the human/earth factions.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1107826Easy, I'd use Classic Traveller for this. Fits right in. I like the Indestructible Puppeter starship hulls, The Outsiders, the Kzin, The Pak, the Tnuctipun, The Thrintun, Trinocs, and the Whrloo. Not to mention all the human/earth factions.

Thought of it, but I have never created races or classes or ships for Traveller. But  it's a good fit and you could even play the humanity-kzin wars.

I've played, and admire, the old BRP Ringworld game, so that is a pretty obvious starting point. But if I were to run a campaign in this setting now, and I felt like I had done enough reading to really understand how it works, I'd use Classic Traveller. It would take a week or two to patch together the necessary racial stat blocks and so forth, but Traveller is a very natural fit with the Known Space cannon, and part of the pleasure of the hobby is making your own stuff.