Ladies and gentlemen, a moment of your time!

[Spider]

The interesting thing is that you dont use maths in the actual roll with d100. With d20 systems you use addition/subtraction in every roll you make.

 

Its DC 20 to make a chair.. ok Ive got carpentry 7 and I roll 9..thats 7+9 = 16..DC was 20.. nope, no chair there. Oh wait! I have a +2 bonus from my magic hammer then Im up to 18.. nah, still no chair.

 

The amount of math in the first system is entirely dependant on how often you vary the difficulties for the tasks. If most rolls come with a modifier then it's about the same. In either case, it's not exactly rocket science.

 

 

And in most d100 systems it is vital that you use a d100 because even if you only give bonuses and penalities in decimal increments, characters will still have skills and traits like 39, 62, 89 and so on.

 

I'm aware of this. I even adressed it in my first post on the topic. I said having 91 instead of 90 is a bit pointless. The difference is neglible. But I guess it comes down to personal preference. I just don't like rolling a d100 during gameplay, nor do I like having my character's skill increasements be so small that they are mostly insignificant (1 of 100 is, while 1 of 20 isn't).

 

"Drakar & Demoner" used a d100 initially but switched to using a d20 and it worked fine. I prefer usig a d100 because percentile systems are extremely intuitive, 35% feels a lot more concrete than 6 out of 20.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course, 35% is 7 of 20.

 

Peronsally though, I'm not a huge fan of the percentiles or derivatives thereof (ie systems that use the d100 or d20). To me, they're just boring. I much prefer systems like White Wolf's Storytelling system, the one in L5R (that system is absolutely brilliant by the way, to bad I didn't much care for the game's setting) or the old Star Wars from West End Games (although that one basically is a DC system, just with a different die roll).

 

In regards of "Drakar och Demoner", the most popular versions are Expert and the 91 edition (at least before the new release) both of which use the d20. So I guess I'm not the only one who has that preference.

[metadigital]

Dunno what happens if skills go over 100 either.  Fixed ceiling on 100? 

 

On the other hand why make numbers bigger when you can work with smaller numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Add zeroes: one out of 1000 is ten times more difficult to roll than one out of 100.

[Darque]

I've been meaning to reply to this for a while now, but I haven't been able to come to decision for the poll.

 

They BOTH seem logical to me. :ph34r:

[dunniteowl]

I have to go with the majority on this one, it is neither more or less logical to use either system.

 

I am glad you got the anecdotal data for your semi-scientific paper.

 

I have a problem with most systems in the way they treat the numbers in general and where the dice roll is supposed to lay for success.

 

To me, in a d100 system, if you have a 45% chance of doing something, should the number you roll be over or under that number for success?

 

To me just looking at something, if you have a 45% chance after all modifiers and you roll a 52%, it seems to me that you have succeeded. You have rolled a higher number than the base number for success. That seems logical to me.

 

If you really look at it, though, you would have to roll under the percentile, because the roll amount is less than the base value. So, from a just looking standpoint, it seems intuitive (with the Bigger is Better thinking) that to roll higher than the percentile requirement should guaranty success. From a logical perspective, it is clear that you have to roll the percentile or lower (so bigger is not better in this regard...) Some folks have used either in systems that I have played and this is where it can get confusing.

 

If you feel more comfortable with a d20 or d10 system over a d100 system, that boils down to personal preferences. I have no problem with any or all of the systems. Then again I started off board wargaming, then D&D systems, Traveller and a few others not worth noting.

 

I think that what makes the real difference in a system that checks for success or failure is that the directions and explanations be clear and explicit with a couple of examples provided to make it so. The most logical method to one person might not seem so logical to the next. It can show up in the percent chance for success/failure, the roll modifiers or the fact that you either have to roll over or under the number for success.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I know there are plenty of folks out there who have some rather pointed views on DCs in the first place. So I am interested in the post poll results aspects of this topic...

 

regards,

dunniteowl

[Sand]

I prefer reaching to a target number, may that be the d20 System, Cyberpunk, or whatever. The more difficult the task is the higher the Difficulty Value of the task. The more skilled you are the higher the roll will be.

[metadigital]

A forty-five percent chance of success would, to me as a player and a DM, mean I had to roll 55 or above (taking 00 as 100, and the rolls needed to be a five or better, with zero as the highest number on the die).

[Walsingham]

I am utterly baffled by the notion that a target number (option b) is more sensible. It may well be what you are used to, but in purely mathematical terms the percentile approach is more straightforward, and is the approach used in every simulation I've ever seen. This is because:

 

1. Most scientific data can be used to construct a (0,1) probabilty of something happening.

 

2. A large number of computerised systems are capable of generating good pseudo-random (0,1) numbers.

 

3. You may want to use a probability distribution to sample from, like the poisson or normal distribution.

 

In a completely made up doolalli gameworld like D&D there's no reason why points 1 and 3 would interest you. But in any remotely real world setting they might.

 

Kaft, if you're talking about game design then you may want to include these points, because it can greatly simplify making your target tables and so on.

 

Hence... *and with this Walsingham recedes into a tangle of anecdotes concerning risk analysis and, for some reason, baboons.*