I've never been satisfied with how OSR games handle skills. Here's how Buck Rogers XXV does it. Mike Pondsmith is credited with game design in the credits!
Skill ChecksRoll D100. If the roll is < your skill rating, you succeed. A 01-05 is an automatic success if you have spent ranks on the skill. A 96-00 is always an automatic failure. Multiply your skill rating times the difficulty:
- Easy: x2
- Average: x1
- Difficult: x .5
- Impossible: x .25
You can attempt a skill if you haven't trained in it, but you don't get to add your attribute or career bonus.
Ability ChecksRoll <= attribute on a D20.
Career SkillsEach career has 8 career skills. For example, the Rogue has Bypass security, Climb, Fast talk, Hide, Move Silently, Notice, Open lock, and Pick pocket.
Every level, you get 40 points to spend on your career skills, but you can't spend more than +15 to any single skill.
Add your attribute rating (usually 3 to 18) to your career skills.
Add your class bonus (if any) to your career skills. (Rogues have a +10 bonus.)
General SkillsStuff like knowledges, hobbies, and background skills, but you can also buy skills from other career lists. The only requirements are that the skill does not appear on
your career list, and you can't buy Medic skills.
Starting characters must select 4 to 6 general skills.
Every level, you get 20 points to spend on your career skills, but you can't spend more than +15 to any single skill.
Add your attribute rating (usually 3 to 18) to your general skills.
Every level you can add one new general skill. General skills can't exceed rank 80.
My ThoughtsI like it, but I'd probably hack it a bit.
Creating a character sheet in Excel would be a good idea, with columns that calculate the difficulties ahead of time.
I don't like the fact it's < skill rating rather than <= skill rating. It's weird to me that a character with Hide: 23 has a 22% chance of success.
The class bonuses are inconsistent, but I think that's part of the intended design.
XXV was published in 1990. Does that count as old school?
That looks pretty similar to Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, or Pendragon. Whether you consider that old school might depend on when you were in school. :D
Quote from: Bren;1093612That looks pretty similar to Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, or Pendragon. Whether you consider that old school might depend on when you were in school. :D
You're right. I'm embarrassed to say that it's been so long since I have played RQ that I totally forgot that. Does RQ have the split between Career and General, though?
Buck Rogers XXVc was a great system and it's sad how much it gets overlooked. Very old-school D&D in style, but with scifi elements baked in. I'll confess that I haven't played it in quite a while, so my memory on the skill system is hazy, but I have fond memories of the game in general.
That is essentially a simplified version of the skill system from Dragon Quest and James Bond. (The thresholds are different in those systems, but at heart it is the same thing.)
If you don't like the "off by 1 percent" thing, an easy fix is to declare the "00" result on the d100 as a zero instead of 100. This also slides the system very slightly towards more success. Given the inherent "whiff factor" in the raw system, that wouldn't bother me. Now when your skill is 23, you have a 23 percent chance on an average difficulty check.
I've played around with similar ideas in a home design that I've just about abandoned now in favor of a different mechanic. There are some neat things you can do with d100 roll under that haven't all been combined into one system (as far as I know), but it isn't without warts, either.
Quote from: finarvyn;1093631Buck Rogers XXVc was a great system and it's sad how much it gets overlooked. Very old-school D&D in style, but with scifi elements baked in. I'll confess that I haven't played it in quite a while, so my memory on the skill system is hazy, but I have fond memories of the game in general.
yeah I really liked it!
Another to put on the list.
I had actually overlooked the Buck Rogers RPG at the time, thinking it was a half-assed cash grab by Lorraine Williams (who had ties to the Buck Rogers IP), but then I took a look at it about a decade ago and was really impressed.
But I really don't understand why d100% skills wouldn't be old school. I know much of the OSR seems to think skills are heresy, and at best they are okay done on a d6, but they literally date back to the first thief class which was '74 (EGG took it from Gary Schweitzer)
Quote from: JeremyR;1093698I had actually overlooked the Buck Rogers RPG at the time, thinking it was a half-assed cash grab by Lorraine Williams (who had ties to the Buck Rogers IP), but then I took a look at it about a decade ago and was really impressed.
But I really don't understand why d100% skills wouldn't be old school. I know much of the OSR seems to think skills are heresy, and at best they are okay done on a d6, but they literally date back to the first thief class which was '74 (EGG took it from Gary Schweitzer)
It's an overlooked gem, that stands up surprisingly well after all of these years. It's got just the right amount of "transhumanism" for me, humans that are genetically modified to live on other planets and in zero-G.
I agree that percentile skill systems are old school. But there's some proto-3E DNA in there; what would later become class and cross-class skills. Could be just a coincidence. I don't know if the XXV design affected the early 3E design.
I've always been fond of XXVc. I've got a bit of a cross between it and Mechanoid Invasion in a recent game design. I started with an sf game to do a Warhammer 40000 like universe where most human worlds restrict themselves to WWII technology for fear of an alien race, but wound up doing a fantasy version that got more finished sooner. Me and my big unfinished projects.
In it, you get 10 career skills, each of which gets an attribute base score +10 for being skilled and +5 per level. That way you just pick your skills rather than distributing points.
I thought about using the multipliers from XXVc but since it's supposed to be a dead simple system and the multipliers tend to break the scale I went with bonuses and penalties.
Quote from: Aglondir;1093614Does RQ have the split between Career and General, though?
Sort of yes, and sort of no. For RQ/CoC/Pendragon there are backgrounds or previous experience that determine what skills the character starts out with and those typically do have a career/general sort of split so sort of yes. But (with very rare exceptions) there isn't a restriction on improving a skill after play starts based on experience or training (assuming a willing teacher can be found), so sort of no.
The difficulty multipliers are much like 007 Ease Factors, but also like some versions of the RQ family of systems.
After some thought... I don't think it's going to work for me. The skill ratings are too low:
Hide in Shadows for a Rogue, level 1
Att rating: 15% (not unreasonable)
Skill rating: 15% (max)
Class bonus: 10%
Total: 40%
Even for first level, I want the PC's to have > 50% chance with their career skills.
Quote from: Aglondir;1093611XXV was published in 1990. Does that count as old school?
Does it have hit/health points?
How do you die?
Is there XP/Leveling?
How are combat rounds treated?
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1093882Does it have hit/health points?
How do you die?
Is there XP/Leveling?
How are combat rounds treated?
1. Yes. d6, d8, d10 hit dice
2. At 0 HP
3. Yes, each class has its own table
4. One-minute long
Buck Rogers is a really underrated system and game. I've run it at conventions a couple times, and I find it very intuitive, rich, and flexible.
Quote from: Aglondir;1093857After some thought... I don't think it's going to work for me. The skill ratings are too low:
Then bump it up 10% or more. No reason to toss out the game just for that.
Quote from: languagegeek;1094270Then bump it up 10% or more. No reason to toss out the game just for that.
I'm considering +30.
Att rating: 10% to 18% (avg/max)
Skill rating: 5% to 15% (min/max)
Class bonus: 10%
Base adjustment: +30%
Total: 55% on the lower end, 73% on the high side.
Thinking of another D100 skill based system, BRP/Call of Cthulhu - most (not all) editions divorce skills from stats. So you can have a DEX 3 klutz with Acrobatics 90%. For some reason, this annoys me.
How if at all did XXVc address this?
I'm pretty satisfied with D20+ Ability bonus + Skill bonus
I prefer percentile but I'd go one way or the other. But really, XXVc is the very best iteration of AD&D 2e it gets rid of the problem where everyone's more competent at a non weapon proficiency trade than they are at their character class. The weapons are cleanly integrated and well thought out. It's a sweet package. Did I mention the solar system map with moving planets and the clear plastic travel time ruler? Great stuff. Great cover art too. You've got the look and feel of retro sf married to a very modern, transhumanist setting.
Quote from: Aglondir;1094274I'm considering +30.
Att rating: 10% to 18% (avg/max)
Skill rating: 5% to 15% (min/max)
Class bonus: 10%
Base adjustment: +30%
Total: 55% on the lower end, 73% on the high side.
Every time I see breakdowns like this for d100% games - I always wonder why they just don't round to the nearest 5, and use a d20.
Pendragon did this -I wonder why it didn't trickle down to the other % game systems.
Just one of those things that strike me as odd.
Quote from: Jaeger;1095172Every time I see breakdowns like this for d100% games - I always wonder why they just don't round to the nearest 5, and use a d20.
Pendragon did this -I wonder why it didn't trickle down to the other % game systems.
Just one of those things that strike me as odd.
Wouldn't that totally negate the granularity of d100?
I dislike percentile skills and especially this system, because I think it fails to represent the range of human skill - which is more than 100%.
This might seem counter-intuitive, but there are a lot of tasks that are both (a) very difficult for a beginner - close to 0%, but (b) easy for a qualified professional - close to 100%. Further, there are tasks that are (a) very difficult for a minimally qualified professional - close to 0%, but (b) easy for the best in the world. If you represent task difficulty as +-X percentage, then this would have to be that both skill and difficulty should range by more than 100.
Consider climbing. There are real-world climbers that can go up a 1000 foot sheer cliff face without safety gear. They're sure they have > 95% chance of getting up it, or they'd never possibly attempt it. Conversely, there are professional climbers who wouldn't even consider attempting that - they're sure they couldn't make it. Still, they can do things that a beginner couldn't hope to.
The same would go for computer skills. The difference between a barbarian unfamiliar with computers, a young person who has completed a high school programming course, a professional software engineer, and the world's top programmer/hacker. These skill levels are all at very different orders of magnitude. What is very difficult for one level could be trivially easy for the next.
Quote from: jhkim;1095198These skill levels are all at very different orders of magnitude. What is very difficult for one level could be trivially easy for the next.
And worrying about that sort of stuff leads you down the slope to kludgy systems that STILL won't satisfy the 'experts' on some field or another.
It's a compromise, like most playable game systems.
Quote from: Simlasa;1095201And worrying about that sort of stuff leads you down the slope to kludgy systems that STILL won't satisfy the 'experts' on some field or another.
It's a compromise, like most playable game systems.
Yes, and the problem that if you are trying to make a system that models skills leaning towards something "realistic" (that is, at least analogous to the realistic dynamic that jhkim described so well), that's one thing. If instead you want to model skills leaning towards "heroic fantasy" (whatever the actual genre), that's another. They can't really overlap in the same system, unless you make lots of compromises and/or file off all kinds of edge cases. Which creates its own problems.
Heroic fantastical characters are frequently specialists in name, but generalists in many of the things they do. Characters being that generalist is not realistic but it is true to the emulation of the thing.
Quote from: jhkim;1095198This might seem counter-intuitive, but there are a lot of tasks that are both (a) very difficult for a beginner - close to 0%, but (b) easy for a qualified professional - close to 100%. Further, there are tasks that are (a) very difficult for a minimally qualified professional - close to 0%, but (b) easy for the best in the world. If you represent task difficulty as +-X percentage, then this would have to be that both skill and difficulty should range by more than 100.
I have no issue with % systems but this is a solid point. BRP has an option for skills over 100%. While not perfect, I think it helps to address the gap.
The BRP/Runequest derived Heroquest has an interesting approach to the exponential nature of skill progression. The system is based around a roll-under mechanic. Typically stats run from 1-20 but in theory you could easily work with any other number range. When you bump a stat up to the max, say 20, the next bump puts you at 1m, which is a "1 plus mastery". At 20m the next one up would be 1m1 or "1 with 2 levels of mastery".
Like BRP Heroquest has success levels: fumble, failure, success, and critical. Each mastery gives you one success level bump. For example, let's say someone has a skill with a rank of 10. To succeed the player needs to roll under 10. Now say he has a 2m instead. Rolling under 2 is unlikely so he'll probably fail, but the mastery means he gets an auto-bump so failure becomes success. Similarly, a fumble becomes a normal failure and a normal success becomes a crit. This means that a character holding a single mastery will automatically succeed in normal conditions. A character with 2 levels of mastery doesn't even risk a fumble, and with 3 mastery levels he always crits.
For contested actions mastery levels cancel out. Two characters dueling with sword skills at 2m2 and 19m are rolling against 2m and 19 respectively. A challenging task might also have a mastery level associated with it, which means that a non-mastery holding character will automatically fail unless assisted or incredibly luck. For tasks more than one mastery level beyond a characters skill anything other than a crit will result in a fumble.
While the Heroquest system as a generic RPG has some issues, this resolution mechanic does a fairly good job of modeling real-world skill progression where different places on the learning curve are not just quantitatively but qualitatively different.
Quote from: jhkim;1095198I dislike percentile skills and especially this system, because I think it fails to represent the range of human skill - which is more than 100%.
This might seem counter-intuitive, but there are a lot of tasks that are both (a) very difficult for a beginner - close to 0%, but (b) easy for a qualified professional - close to 100%. Further, there are tasks that are (a) very difficult for a minimally qualified professional - close to 0%, but (b) easy for the best in the world. If you represent task difficulty as +-X percentage, then this would have to be that both skill and difficulty should range by more than 100.
Consider climbing. There are real-world climbers that can go up a 1000 foot sheer cliff face without safety gear. They're sure they have > 95% chance of getting up it, or they'd never possibly attempt it. Conversely, there are professional climbers who wouldn't even consider attempting that - they're sure they couldn't make it. Still, they can do things that a beginner couldn't hope to.
The same would go for computer skills. The difference between a barbarian unfamiliar with computers, a young person who has completed a high school programming course, a professional software engineer, and the world's top programmer/hacker. These skill levels are all at very different orders of magnitude. What is very difficult for one level could be trivially easy for the next.
That is because you have
flat rolls. Knights of the Black Lily solves this with
Resisted Tests (as opposed to the flat roll
Basic Tests it also features).
How does it work? Each task has a difficulty rating to which you compare your relevant skill or attribute. If it's equal, the success chance is 50/50. If your skill is higher then the success chance changes per point difference: 59%/75%/87% (symmetrically to the lower side if the difficulty rating is higher). If there is a 4 point or more difference though then there is an auto-fail or auto-success (or the GM can adjudicate a minimum/maximum sucess chance). [Disclaimer: In the Quickstart rules, this is simplified to cutting off at the highest percent chance instead).
My basic reasoning behind this was breaking down doors. The Mountain that Rides or Arnie should be able to basically automatically break in doors that a whimp like me would struggle to open. So you basically have a difficulty range in which the outcome is in doubt. Otherwise it's not.
When to you use (flat) Basic Tests and when the above Resisted Tests? You use the latter when there should be this limited range of uncertainty. Compare to, say, noticing a clue lying on the carpet underneath a desk. Anyone who isn't blind should have a chance to spot it. It's just that characters with god-like perception should nearly automatically spot it while near-blind people should have minimum success chances.
Quote from: Brad;1095177Wouldn't that totally negate the granularity of d100?
I submit that in actual play no one would notice the difference.
They certainly don't in Pendragon.
And if runequest/mythras divided everything by 5 and switched to d20 roll under, the games Actual play would be unaffected.
There is no system in CoC, Mythras/Runequest, that wouldn't need a simple design tweak to work with a d20.
It's just the inertia of nostalgia.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1095219Yes, and the problem that if you are trying to make a system that models skills leaning towards something "realistic" ...Heroic fantastical characters are frequently specialists in name, but generalists in many of the things they do. Characters being that generalist is not realistic but it is true to the emulation of the thing.
This.
Never try to emulate reality in an RPG. No system can do that.
RPG systems are all about Genre emulation IMHO.
Quote from: Jaeger;1095332I submit that in actual play no one would notice the difference.
They certainly don't in Pendragon.
And if runequest/mythras divided everything by 5 and switched to d20 roll under, the games Actual play would be unaffected.
There is no system in CoC, Mythras/Runequest, that wouldn't need a simple design tweak to work with a d20.
It's just the inertia of nostalgia.
The joy of passing by the narrowest of margins is 5 times as big in CoC than in D&D. Same for rolling 01 versus 20. And the opposite for 00 versus 1. All of this lends itself to more dramatic interpretation/narration.
You can have Critical Failure probabilties lower than 5% without turning to unelegant threat confirmation mechanics.
You can have skill progression at rates of less than 5%.
Occasionally the 1% or 2% you shave off or add when you convert to d20 will flip the result of a test. In a campaign, it's safe to assume that it will eventually flip the result of a crucial test. Your players will never know it, yes, but it will have impacted the game in a major way.
In short, there is no reason to not use a d100 unless you notice that you to expend detectable portions of energy on doing elementary operations on two digit numbers.
Quote from: Jaeger;1095332I submit that in actual play no one would notice the difference.
I've played both Runequest and Pendragon. Often the difference between rolling 1D20 and 1D100 is not a large difference, but it is a difference I noticed. The difference is especially noticeable when you have critical, special, and fumble rolls with odds that scale with skill level rather than a straight 5% auto success and 5% auto failure regardless of skill levels that D20 often uses.
QuoteIt's just the inertia of nostalgia.
In RPGs using a D20 came a few years before using a D100 . So is your preference for D20 due only to the inertia of nostalgia?
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095346The joy of passing by the narrowest of margins is 5 times as big in CoC than in D&D. Same for rolling 01 versus 20. And the opposite for 00 versus 1. ....
That is pure personal preference.
In actual play, no one I know will talk about d100 being soooo much better than succeeding by rolling a 6 to a target of 7 on a d20.
And to show my perspective; I prefer die pool systems. I just can't be bothered to care about a +or- 2 to 3% difference in a roll.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095346... there is no reason to not use a d100 unless you notice that you to expend detectable portions of energy on doing elementary operations on two digit numbers.
No reason to not use a d20 either, why roll two dice when one will do?
It is all personal preference.
Yes, there are guys like you whose mind gets the extra kick from that seeing the extra 1-2 % points in action...
But most of the players I know are very system agnostic - they could care less if it was d100 or d20 roll under. They are very much of the mind; "just tell me what I have to roll..." school of roleplaying.
For example the game system in your sig: (which I think is actually quite clever.)
If you introduced new players to your system with a d20:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3601[/ATTACH]
No one
new to your system would know the difference, especially since you do not use % skills.
Not that is is objectively better in any way - just that the difference would not be enough either way for
new players to care.
Quote from: Bren;1095613I've played both Runequest and Pendragon. Often the difference between rolling 1D20 and 1D100 is not a large difference, but it is a difference I noticed. The difference is especially noticeable when you have critical, special, and fumble rolls with odds that scale with skill level rather than a straight 5% auto success and 5% auto failure regardless of skill levels that D20 often uses.
Apples and oranges: The RQ scaling crits can easily be ported over to d20 roll under. Yes you lose some granularity, but for people new to the system they would never know the difference.
That being said, if the new RQ were to move to d20 roll under; they would have a full scale revolt on their hands with the existing player base.
It's would be mostly due to system nostalgia.
But system nostalgia is a very powerful and strong factor for people. (4e proved that).
Quote from: Bren;1095613In RPGs using a D20 came a few years before using a D100 . So is your preference for D20 due only to the inertia of nostalgia?
LOL no. Cut my teeth on 1st edition Star Wars d6. d20 holds no special place for me.
I'm not saying d20 roll under is superior in any way to d100.
It is not. But neither is d100 with its increased granularity. It just doesn't add that much more.
Because for the majority of 'new' players to a system; it just doesn't matter.
Quote from: Jaeger;1095952That is pure personal preference.
I don't think that particular point is very contentious though. I mean, let's make an even more clear-cut comparison: succeeding a test by the narrowest of margins under a system that uses a single d6 isn't special at all. Under d100, that might invite a round of high-fives.
Quote from: Jaeger;1095952In actual play, no one I know will talk about d100 being soooo much better than succeeding by rolling a 6 to a target of 7 on a d20.
"You might not have noticed it, but your brain did. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f83D18xL7VE&t=54m51s)"
Quote from: Jaeger;1095952No reason to not use a d20 either, why roll two dice when one will do?
It is all personal preference.
Yes, it's definitely personal preference. That being said, the d100's granularity allows it do things elegantly that the d20 can only do more awkwardly (threat confirmation?). The price is that you occasionally need to calculate 63-15. (Likewise I freely admit that GURPS' 3d6 can have rarer results than d100 - rolls of 3 or 18.)
Quote from: Jaeger;1095952Yes, there are guys like you whose mind gets the extra kick from that seeing the extra 1-2 % points in action...
I don't think I get explicitly a kick from it. It's more that I am aware that it has a subtle impact on the game, as mentioned above.
Quote from: Jaeger;1095952But most of the players I know are very system agnostic - they could care less if it was d100 or d20 roll under. They are very much of the mind; "just tell me what I have to roll..." school of roleplaying.
For example the game system in your sig: (which I think is actually quite clever.)
If you introduced new players to your system with a d20:
No one new to your system would know the difference, especially since you do not use % skills.
Not that is is objectively better in any way - just that the difference would not be enough either way for new players to care.
Experienced role-players do know that there is a difference between d20 and d100 though, even if you never consciously notice it during play. In particular, there's plenty of d20 players who don't like a 5% fumble range and think heroes should have a narrower fumble range. And guess what? It's experienced gamers that buy games, especially more obscure games.
But more importantly you picked on the wrong ruleset here ;) :
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/66/f7/cb/66f7cb1accb852a5482833ba34b4a5f0.jpg)
How does your d20 KotBL convert that in an elegant matter? ;)
Quote from: Jaeger;1095952Apples and oranges: The RQ scaling crits can easily be ported over to d20 roll under. Yes you lose some granularity, but for people new to the system they would never know the difference.
I'm curious how you easily port over chances lower than 5% with a single d20 roll?
QuoteIt's would be mostly due to system nostalgia.
The mindless repetition of "because nostalgia" tossed at anyone who disagrees with your preference got old back when the 4E players used it against anyone who didn't agree that 4E was a huge improvement over everything that came before it. It's no less tiring when you do it now. We all understand that you don't think that there is any need for anything being less likely than a 1 in 20 chance. But obviously not everyone agrees with you.
QuoteI'm not saying d20 roll under is superior in any way to d100.
It is not. But neither is d100 with its increased granularity. It just doesn't add that much more.
One could say the same for the old d20. It just doesn't add that much vs a d10 or a d8. Continue down that slope and soon everything is just a 50-50 coin toss. Granularity matters, else we wouldn't need or have anything other than a 50-50 coin toss. How much granularity a system has will vary based on what the system is trying to represent and how much the users of the system care about trying to represent that thing.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095959...
Experienced role-players do know that there is a difference between d20 and d100 though, even if you never consciously notice it during play. In particular, there's plenty of d20 players who don't like a 5% fumble range and think heroes should have a narrower fumble range. And guess what? It's experienced gamers that buy games, especially more obscure games.
Now here is a good point. For me system does matter, but I have learned that for system to matter, first you have to care about systems. And in my experience the majority of the players I know just don't care.
But, when you are dealing with experienced gamer's, with particular tastes, system does matter.
So while
for me, I see no reason why your TRC chart could not just be d20 based, there are other factors.
You'll be selling your game to established/experienced gamer's who are probably well aware of games like Mythras and RQ which hit on similar points, (although you seem to be going for a bit more of an action-movie cinematic vibe). So my biases aside, having your game use d100 would be considered a feature, not a bug, for your market, and is objectively the right move.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095959But more importantly you picked on the wrong ruleset here ;) :
*KoTBL RULE*
How does your d20 KotBL convert that in an elegant matter? ;)
Ha! Finally!
Easy way out: Just use the same rule for d20! Yes, you are swapping FP back and forth a bit more , but what the hell, it is supposed to be a cinematic game!
My bias: I don't like the +/- nature of the mechanic, and would cut such a thing out of my home game. But...
Your Intent: When thinking of why one would put such a rule in; I would not want it to come up as often as it would on a d20. I would want this to came up every now and then as a kind of special FP flavor that added to the game without making it a relatively routine occurrence. In such case using the d100 actually works in favor of the intent of the rule.
So yes, the rule you outlined is a good example of taking advantage of the d100's granularity with a rule intent that is not readily transferable to another kind of die.
Quote from: Bren;1095990I'm curious how you easily port over chances lower than 5% with a single d20 roll? .
Really? You just round up or down to the nearest 5%. A natural 1 always hits. Done.
Quote from: Bren;1095990The mindless repetition of "because nostalgia" tossed at anyone who disagrees with your preference got old back when the 4E players used it against anyone who didn't agree that 4E was a huge improvement over everything that came before it. It's no less tiring when you do it now. We all understand that you don't think that there is any need for anything being less likely than a 1 in 20 chance. But obviously not everyone agrees with you..
It's ok to disagree with me. Nobody's done any name calling, so it's all good.
And I do recognize the power of nostalgia in the RPG market. From a purely mechanical point of view 4e did do
some things better. So objectively speaking, in some cases they were technically right. But what the the 4e fanboys failed to realise was this; that it just didn't matter.
Just like I recognise that RQ players would openly revolt if Chaosium changed to d20 resolution. The 4e fans failed to recognise similar circumstances when it came to D&D.
But in such cases we are dealing with established fanbases, and experienced players - as noted in my replies above.
Quote from: Bren;1095990One could say the same for the old d20. It just doesn't add that much vs a d10 or a d8. Continue down that slope and soon everything is just a 50-50 coin toss. Granularity matters, else we wouldn't need or have anything other than a 50-50 coin toss. How much granularity a system has will vary based on what the system is trying to represent and how much the users of the system care about trying to represent that thing.
I see where you are going with your reductio ad absurdum. Taken to the extremes why aren't we all just flipping pennies?
But I'm not about the extremes.
All I'm saying is that d20 or d100... it just doesn't matter to most players. Especially new players.
Because if the difference really was that Big of a deal, Pendragon would not have gone on to have 5.2! editions. And be a relatively well known game in the RPG hobby.
Quote from: Jaeger;1096002Really? You just round up or down to the nearest 5%. A natural 1 always hits. Done.
So you get probabilities that are less than 5% by not having probabilities that are less than 5%...right.... You are clearly wrong that this is a change players would not notice. Rounding the chance for a critical down to 0% means that anyone with a skill level less than 50% will have 0% chance to critical. That is something every player is going to notice very quickly.
QuoteAnd I do recognize the power of nostalgia in the RPG market.
:rolleyes: Oh look, yet another repetition of "because nostalgia." .
QuoteBecause if the difference really was that Big of a deal, Pendragon would not have gone on to have 5.2! editions. And be a relatively well known game in the RPG hobby.
That point is highly debatable. For one thing, Pendragon doesn't actually use the same system as does Runequest. Pendragon is a single attack roll rather than an attack and parry roll, and unlike RQ or D20 games rolling lowest is
not best. Pendragon uses a highest roll (that is less than or equal to skill level) wins. I suspect one reason that Pendragon went to a d20 was because of the trait system which, like skills, also uses a d20. One could track traits and passions with a d100 (in fact the first published version of traits did exactly that), but it's probably too granular and detailed for easy tracking of the dozen or so traits and passions and too mIt That method (arguably) works better with a d20 than it with a d100. And the using 0-100 instead of 0-20 for traits is probably too granular and too time consuming to track for the 26 traits and 5+ passions that every character will have. The originally published version had fewer traits to track. There's also a design intent to move the focus from a daily or weekly activity for Runequest to an annual time scale where incremental increases that are less than 5% probably don't makes sense given the time scale change or the use of the Winter season activities. I think that the change to 1d20 was not made because the designers thought people wouldn't notice whether d20 or d100 was used.
The change was made because the designers wanted the change to be noticeable.On the other hand Call of Cthulhu went from attributes that were more or less on a 1-20 scale to percentile attributes. Clearly the change to a different measure for attributes was not due to nostalgia. It would seem a similar line of argument to yours would force us to conclude that more players actually prefer d100 to d20? (Since Call of Cthulhu has been around longer and has been played by more players than Pendragon.)
Quote from: Jaeger;1096002So my biases aside, having your game use d100 would be considered a feature, not a bug, for your market, and is objectively the right move.
Maybe but I do what I like here. I am a huge fan of d100, roll-under. Once you understand how a d100 works, it's so transparent - I like that.
Quote from: Jaeger;1096002Ha! Finally!
Easy way out: Just use the same rule for d20! Yes, you are swapping FP back and forth a bit more , but what the hell, it is supposed to be a cinematic game!
That's too much to reflect accurately cinematic combat standards - it doesn't happen that often in movies. It would be whacky! And in the RPG, if you have a fight with 10 combatants, you can easily have 100+ rolls in that fight, given that you use d100 also for damage and armor saves. I even will need to restrict this to not include those two to cut down on the frequency in combat further in the next update.
Anyway, this is a Buck Rogers thread and I just wanted to point that the above mentioned simulationist inaccuracies of the d100 result from flat tests (roll d100 against your skill level) where the skill level range in which the outcome would be at all in doubt (for better or worse) is not properly considered. As an example how it can be done instead, here's how I do it (you use the "Resisted" line to determine which column to roll on):
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/65/b2/0e/65b20ed31d696e45b505f5e578967a40.jpg)
Quote from: Bren;1096055So you get probabilities that are less than 5% by not having probabilities that are less than 5%...right.... You are clearly wrong that this is a change players would not notice. Rounding the chance for a critical down to 0% means that anyone with a skill level less than 50% will have 0% chance to critical. That is something every player is going to notice very quickly.
See the part on my reply when you always hit on a 1 - make it always crit on a 1 = solved.
Quote from: Bren;1096055:rolleyes: Oh look, yet another repetition of "because nostalgia." .
To deny the effect of nostalgia and legacy systems,(sacred cows), on the RPG hobby is to deny reality.
Quote from: Bren;1096055That point is highly debatable. For one thing, Pendragon doesn't actually use the same system as does Runequest
...Pendragon is a single attack roll rather than an attack and parry roll, and unlike RQ or D20 games rolling lowest is not best. Pendragon uses a highest roll (that is less than or equal to skill level) wins. .
Current editions of RQ/Mythras have the same mechanic using d100% in the rules.
Quote from: Bren;1096055I suspect one reason that Pendragon went to a d20 was because of the trait system which, like skills, also uses a d20. One could track traits and passions with a d100 (in fact the first published version of traits did exactly that), but it's probably too granular and detailed
Current editions of RQ and Mythras have % passions.
So it can obviously work
good enough either way.
Will there be some differences due to loss/gain in granularity? For sure, Some system tweaks will be needed.
But during
actual play for most players with no d100 experience? d20 will work just fine.
Which is all I'm arguing.
Quote from: Bren;1096055I think that the change to 1d20 was not made because the designers thought people wouldn't notice whether d20 or d100 was used. The change was made because the designers wanted the change to be noticeable.
Maybe your right, maybe they didn't want new players to think RQ in Camelot! A valid reason for the change.
And when making a roll under d20 game, saying that it is "similar to Pendragon RPG!" does not get you very much system recognition. d20 roll under is not the first thing people think about when they think of Pendragon as a game.
But saying "it's like CoC, RQ, or Mythras" - and experienced RPG people usually know exactly what you are talking about: A d100% game.
Quote from: Bren;1096055On the other hand Call of Cthulhu went from attributes that were more or less on a 1-20 scale to percentile attributes. Clearly the change to a different measure for attributes was not due to nostalgia.
The attributes were not a sacred cow of the system - and the designers could get away with the change because it brought attributes into line with skill levels, and
it made things easier during actual play.
Quote from: Bren;1096055It would seem a similar line of argument to yours would force us to conclude that more players actually prefer d100 to d20? (Since Call of Cthulhu has been around longer and has been played by more players than Pendragon.)
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! The first out of the gate, sets the standard and expectations for system and genre.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1096167Maybe but I do what I like here....]
Doing what you like is also a perfectly valid reason.
Quote from: Jaeger;1096177See the part on my reply when you always hit on a 1 - make it always crit on a 1 = solved.
It is "solved" only if you think that 5 also equals 1, 2, 3, and 4.
QuoteCurrent editions of RQ/Mythras have the same mechanic using d100% in the rules.
QuoteCurrent editions of RQ and Mythras have % passions.
It is odd how so many game designers over so many decades have chosen to use D100 instead of the original, nostalgic, D&D inspired d20. It might even lead one to conclude that there is a perceptible difference to the player between a d20 and a d100.
QuoteBut during actual play for most players with no d100 experience? d20 will work just fine.
You were arguing more than that a d20 will work. You were arguing that the difference for most players was imperceptible. The difference between odds of 1 in 20 and 1 in 100 has been obvious to every player I have ever encountered.
QuoteBut saying "it's like CoC, RQ, or Mythras" - and experienced RPG people usually know exactly what you are talking about
I question whether Mythras is better known than Pendragon - an award winning game that introduced the paired trait and passion mechanic. Obviously my experience is just one data point, but I have yet to encounter anyone in person, as opposed to a handful of people on RPG forums, who even know what Mythras is, whereas I have met multiple people who are familiar with or have even played Pendragon.
Quote from: Bren;1096561It is "solved" only if you think that 5 also equals 1, 2, 3, and 4. .
Yes, you lose some granularity. So What. Easy enough to do conversions that get you in more or less the same place.
Like I said earlier, if the loss of 1-4% depending on the roll rubs you the wrong way, obviously you care more about what system you are using than most of the players I know!
I care about system a lot. But with one exception of 5, my players could really give a shit.
And talking to other GM's in my area, that general attitude among players is kinda par for the course.
Quote from: Bren;1096561It is odd how so many game designers over so many decades have chosen to use D100 instead of the original, nostalgic, D&D inspired d20. It might even lead one to conclude that there is a perceptible difference to the player between a d20 and a d100. .
Never said that there wasn't a difference. Just that when it comes to system that most players are far more forgiving.
Yes, you and players you know would bemoan a conversion of d100 to a d20. But most player in the hobby couldn't get less exited if they never played the game before and have no preconceptions.
I mean there is a reason no one is bemoaning the fact that Pendragon was never upgraded to a d100 % in its 5.5 edition. Because objectively; it wouldn't make a difference in actual play.
Quote from: Bren;1096561You were arguing more than that a d20 will work. You were arguing that the difference for most players was imperceptible. The difference between odds of 1 in 20 and 1 in 100 has been obvious to every player I have ever encountered..
I said
in actual play most payers won't really notice the difference.
Will some players notice? Sure. So What?
If your players would care. good for you! You have a group that is willing to invest in the nuances of the system you are running.
Most of the players I know are pretty system agnostic and simply won't care if it is d100 or d20, so long as the system is good enough, and they get their roleplaying fix.
Quote from: Bren;1096561I question whether Mythras is better known than Pendragon - an award winning game that introduced the paired trait and passion mechanic. Obviously my experience is just one data point, but I have yet to encounter anyone in person, as opposed to a handful of people on RPG forums, who even know what Mythras is, whereas I have met multiple people who are familiar with or have even played Pendragon.
Pendantry. In my quote I specifically said
experienced role players. You knew what I was referencing.
If you get a blank stare when you say Mythras... just follow up with "it's the knockoff version of RQ6".
And they'll think: "Oh another d100 system" so it'll clear any confusion right up!
You can't roll a 66 on a d20. Game, set, match!
Quote from: Jaeger;1097127Yes, you lose some granularity. So What.
So players notice such things, at least they do if they aren't comatose when they play. I've seen more than one casual player complain about a 1/20 chance of extreme events like their fumbles and their opponent's critical successes and that's without those players having experienced a system, like 1D100, where such events occur less frequently.
You continue to maintain that there is no appreciable difference for most players between 1D20 and 1D100 while at the same time accepting that there is some noticeable difference between 1D20 and 1D6. Given that the change in granularity is of the same order of magnitude, I find that curious.
QuotePendantry. In my quote I specifically said experienced role players. You knew what I was referencing.
I thought you were referencing Mythras fans. I see them on forums with some frequency, just not in person.
Quote from: Bren;1097212So players notice such things, at least they do if they aren't comatose when they play. I've seen more than one casual player complain about a 1/20 chance of extreme events like their fumbles and their opponent's critical successes and that's without those players having experienced a system, like 1D100, where such events occur less frequently. .
So what?
People have been complaining about the swingy d20 in D&D since forever.
Yet most are just fine continuing to use a d20. And D&D continues to use a d20.
One could make an argument that going to 2d10 would make for a technically better system.
But
not enough people care for WOTC to give a fuck what they think. So D&D will be d20 forever.
Note the part in bold; that is the only argument I'm making. People in the RPG hobby like you and me are outliers - we actually care about system.
And you can always say "but I've ran across x number of people who..." So what.
Compared to the rest of the hobby they are outliers too.
Most players in the hobby are D&D only. They could give a fuck about your non-D&D RPG.
And most players are fairly system agnostic outside of that.
Constantly bringing up "but what about..." exceptions, does not disprove the general rule.
Quote from: Bren;1097212while at the same time accepting that there is some noticeable difference between 1D20 and 1D6. Given that the change in granularity is of the same order of magnitude, I find that curious..
A rewording of your reductio ad absurdum argument from post 31, which I answered in post 32.
Quote from: Bren;1097212You continue to maintain that there is no appreciable difference for most players between 1D20 and 1D100 .....
Look in the Paladin, Warriors of Charlemagne thread...
Do you see how many posters are lamenting the fact that the developers missed a golden opportunity to make the game x5 times better by scaling up to use d100% dice?
Surely, someone has pointed out in the past what an improvement d100 would be over d20 roll under? Surely they would notice the difference? Right?
But lo, gaze upon the Paladin, Warriors of Charlemagne thread, and behold; Zero laments are given.
Well we could have saved a lot of time if you had clearly stated your argument, which is as follows.
Short Version
A large majority D&D players like D20 well enough not to prefer another method of random number generation and that unsupportted claim proves that a large majority of all players of all TTRPGs like D20 well enough not to prefer another method, like D100, for some games they play.
Long Version
Fact: D&D is D20
Your Claim 1: This one fact proves that WotC will never change D&D from D20.
(That WotC would never change D&D from D20 is an unsupported claim, but probably not an unreasonable claim for reasons other than player preferences for random numer generation method.)
Your Claim 2: Claim 1 (if true) proves that not enough people who would play D&D care about issues (such as lack of granularity) with D20 or desire some other random generation method to motivate WotC to change to something other than D20.
Your Claim 3: Claim 2 (if true) proves that not enough people, including people who play games other than D&D that don't use D20, care about issues with D20 to justify any game using anything other than D20, e.g. D100, instead.
Your Claim 4: Claim 3 (if true) proves that the only reason any significant number of people play games that use D100 (or any non-D20 method of randomization) instead of D20 is due to some sort of nostalgia.
Since nostalgia can't be the reason anyone first started to play a game that didn't use D20, your Claim 4 leaves unexplained and mysterious why any significant number of players ever started to play any game that didn't use D20. This indicates that Claim 4 is false.
Claim 3 is doubtful since preferences of D&D players are a poor guide to preferences of people who play other games. So we shouldn't rely on D&D's continuation of D20 as proof of anything about other games. If D&D preferences were a good guide for other games, all TTRPGs would be both level-based and class-based, which clearly they are not.
Claim 2 ignores the other reasons e.g. branding, backwards compatibility, why WotC might choose not to change D&D from D20 to some other method of randomization. We know that branding is supremely important to WotC parent company, so it is likely that branding would be pretty important to WotC. Branding alone might be sufficient motivation for WotC not to change it's basic randomization mechanic. Do we have any evidence that WotC knows or has even asked players of D&D what they think about D20 as opposed to some other mechanic like D100?
I'm with Bren on this one. I know you can swap d100 for a d20 system, but sometimes it feels like it does matter. If you say that 1 is always a critical when you are only hitting on ones - then all your hits will be criticals. There won't be many of them, but they will all be criticals. That will be noticeable. If you're happy with that, cool. I don't think I would be though.
That said, the BRXXV system sounds interesting. I wonder if any of the FFG people who did rogue trader/deathwatch/dark heresy played it.
Quote from: Bren;1097998Well we could have saved a lot of time if you had clearly stated your argument, which is as follows. ...
Nope.
Reading way too much into it dude. It's clear we are talking past each other at this point.
Quote from: spon;1098005I'm with Bren on this one. I know you can swap d100 for a d20 system, but sometimes it feels like it does matter. If you say that 1 is always a critical when you are only hitting on ones - then all your hits will be criticals. There won't be many of them, but they will all be criticals. That will be noticeable. If you're happy with that, cool. I don't think I would be though.
....
It's cool if you are not happy with that and prefer d100.
I'm sure there's plenty of players out there like you who care about system, like exploring the differences, and may prefer certain mechanics over others.
All I'm saying is that in my experience; the majority of players I meet don't care about that stuff... d100? d20? whatever. They are the : "tell me what I need to roll" types. Especially if they have no previous experience with a given system.
Quote from: Jaeger;1098367And all I'm saying is that in my experience; the majority of player I meet, don't care about that stuff... d100? d20? whatever. They are the : "tell me what I need to roll" types. Especially if they have no previous experience with a given system.
RPGs never were designed
for those players. Originally RPGs were designed for wargamers. The players who "don't care about that stuff" rarely if ever GM. They rarely if ever buy rules. They just were not and are not the target market for RPG systems.
That said, unless the GM rolls all the dice for the players, even the most casual of players will easily detect the difference between a system where they have a 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, or 80% chance to hit and yet in each case they always have a 5% chance to critical and a system where that is not the case.
- If your players never notice that difference, they seem unduly unobservant compared to causal gamers I've played with.
- If your players notice the difference and just don't care at all that there is a difference, they seem strangely atypical to the casual gamers I've played with.
- If you are saying they notice the difference, care about the difference, but just don't care about it enough to demand the GM changes to a different system. OK. I believe that. What bugs people about systems is to a large extent a matter of taste and everyone puts up with some stuff in any system they use that they don't like for some reason or another. And people who aren't the GM will usually put up with more stuff they don't much like.
- If you are saying they have never seen any other system or way to play an RPG. OK. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone who has never been exposed to or even imagined a flavor of ice cream other than vanilla is willing to eat vanilla ice cream. If they only knew, they might prefer chocolate, or strawberry, or Cherry Garcia ice cream. But until they are exposed they will live with just plain, old vanilla ice cream. It's better than having no ice cream at all.
Quote from: Bren;1098375RPGs never were designed for those players. Originally RPGs were designed for wargamers. The players who "don't care about that stuff" rarely if ever GM. They rarely if ever buy rules. They just were not and are not the target market for RPG systems.
Absolutely true. But I was never referring to GM preferences.
In my area I get Mostly This:
Quote from: ;1098375- If your players notice the difference and just don't care at all that there is a difference,..
Which is contrary to your experience - but seems to be the norm in my scene. Where most of the players never GM.
I know of Some of This:
Quote from: ;1098375- If you are saying they notice the difference, care about the difference, but just don't care about it enough to demand the GM changes to a different system.
With the caveat that I don't know a single player, nor have heard of an instance, where the players demanded a change of system. I'm in very 'vote with your feet' kind of scene I guess.
Which is probably why I don't know of anyone running any of the heavier systems like HERO/Gurps.