Percentile Based System Help\Question

[Bob Bell]

strike double posting error. errr, sorry.

[M. J. Young]

These comments are meant to focus on Zakharov's stated goal of a simple introduction and do not reflect my agreement with MJ's comments only because they mostly add complexity, especially the Multiverser mechanic which I will address at the end of this, and so are not appropriate for an "easy introduction".

I was not suggesting that Zakharov adopt the Multiverser system; I was offering it for insights into his own system, to encourage him to consider whether it was viable to use the percentile system given his anticipated range of attributes. My post broke down into essentially three categories:[list=1][*]The recommendation that he look at Multiverser, and why, two sentences.[*]A discussion of the problems inherent in using percentile dice against such very low anticipated attribute scores, between four and eight paragraphs, depending on how you break the text.[*]A brief presentation of Multiverser's approach as an example, a single paragraph indented to offset it from the main text.[/list:o]I did not expect or intend that the particular merits of that system would be debated.

However, since they have been debated, and quite wrongly interpreted, I think I'll have to address it.

1) Explain to mom that her character has a 50% chance to miss when punching the goon in front of her and she rolls dice that will give her a range of from 1-100, so she needs to roll 50 or more to hit. Tell her to hit the goon's boss, who is a better fighter, she has a bigger chance of missing (70%) and so she has to roll 70 or more. Extrapolate and do your perception check against a 100 pt scale. Try adding an explicit modifier after she gets the basic action roll down (the boss number has an implicit modifier, but don't get into that, keep it simple!) Always apply any modifiers before or after the roll, for consistency for your new player.

    2) Explain to mom that her character needs to roll 2d20 and add her skill + her appropriate stat and get a 30 or more to avoid missing the goon in front of her because a 30 on 2d20 with average stat+skill over an 11-40 point range is "average" difficulty for a low-level character. If she wants to hit the goon leader she will have to roll a d30 and add 10 for some reason, plus her stat and skill because that is a different difficulty and can't be explained the same way. Mom won't even want to touch a scale of attributes like perception that doesn't match the scale of skills in this system and may have modifiers explained or added differently.

Given the way he presents this, he apparently thinks that #2 has some relationship to Multiverser's mechanics. Other than the same dice are used, I don't know where he gets that idea. It is clearly stated that skill checks use percentiles, and are modified by situation modifiers added to or subtracted from the target number, but that attribute checks are handled differently. Since hitting someone is a skill check, the attribute check rules are irrelevant. Further, the only modifiers ever applied to attribute checks, as my post states, are an adjustment to determine an "effective attribute" in a particular situation. The distinction might be a bit unclear in that paragraph, but the opening paragraph of the post clearly stated,

Let me call your attention to Multiverser, because it uses d100 for resolution of all skill-based activities, which are the most common in the game. It does not use d100 for attribute checks, but I'll get to that in a moment.

The last paragraph is very briefly describing how skill checks are done versus how attribute checks are done. I apologize that I did not restate that the skill check rolled the d100 before describing the rolls for attribute checks.

Incidentally, if Mom has a 50% chance to fail, she must roll a fifty-one or better to succeed. Some people get confused by that.

Even an experienced gamer might be misled by the Multiverser system: I am not sure if the rule quote by MJ is correct because I don't know the Multiverser game, but if it uses the dice system as written, it is flawed in my opinion because it is easier to do great at difficult actions than easy ones. Why? Because 2d20 make a bell-curve whereas 1d30 is a linear chance. Simple tasks have a 1/400 chance of a 40 but hard tasks have a 1/30 chance of a 40. Which would you rather roll?

Although it's not stated, it would seem fairly obvious to me at least that if you're doing an attribute check by rolling dice against the attribute and a higher attribute is better, you must be using a roll-under system. Perhaps that wasn't clear in my brief description, but I'm not certain what Bob thought I was doing as he obviously failed to pick that up.

Given that it is a roll-under system, his analysis of the rolls is also mistaken. Since a 40 will fail, not succeed, for everyone, the difficult check gives a 1/30 chance to fail if you are the best conceivable, and the simple check a 1/400 chance. The comparitive chance of failure between the two rolls at every value is included in the appendix on dice curves in the rules, but since the difficult check is d30+10 it will suffice to note that the chance of rolling an eleven is one chance in thirty that way, or 3.33%, while the chance of rolling an eleven or less on 2d20 is 55/400, or 13.75%.

Better-still, for an introductory game just tell the player what their percent chance of failure is and have them roll over that every time. Simple, Logical, and quick to explain in complete detail: "your dice roll is always against your character's chance to fail at a vital action, whatever factors go into that number just remember that you can look at the situation as a whole and say your character is X% likely to fail, and that is the number you have to beat."

Well, in Multiverser we tell them their chance of success, that they are X% likely to succeed, and that they should roll that number or less; but it is the same thing. In fact, in most play I just tell players to roll the dice, and interpret the results for them.

That misses the point, though. The question is not how to tell the players how to figure out their odds; it's how to determine what they actually do have to roll. Someone has to know that for the game to progress. If his attribute checks are "you must roll five or less on d100", you've got a lot of failed attribute checks ahead of you, and most players won't bother with the roll once they realize how bad their odds are--they'll try to find a way to do the task without relying on a one chance in twenty outcome.

--M. J. Young

[Bob Bell]

Well stated MJ.

I have no familiartiy with Multiverser and obviously wasn't thinking roll-under, which is what led to my upside-down conclusion. I'll have to think a little longer and check out a system before commenting in the future, or just hold my thought!

My apologies.

I agree with all your comments, I was just trying to focus Zakharov on absolute simplicity and ease of understanding for his introductory sessions. As you state, you usually just tell your own players what to roll, which might be even better advice than I gave--that way they don't have to worry about the rules at all, and can ask later if they want to continue playing.

Thanks for setting me straight on Multiverser, I will have to check it out. I am new to these forums and by all the articles and history here, have much to learn. 'Nuff said.

Bob

[Bob Bell]

double post deleted. I'll have to not hit refresh when the forum hangs!

[Alex Johnson]

Simple and elegant. It works quite well. If you want to know how good your character is, you just look at his skills.
So instead of "I'm a third level fighter," you would say, "I have a 74% chance to hit someone with two handed swords, etc.

Yes, it looks very good from my first impression, just now.  I wouldn't want to be dividing any random % by 4, but other than that I like it.  Your skill advancement is also good, if you have a fair way of awarding experience.  But I do have to argue that second sentence.  "I have a 74% chance to hit someone with two handed swords" is something you can't normally say.  What if the guy is using a shield, is good at dodging, is big as a barn door, etc?  Looking at the stat percents does give an excellent impression of a character's abilities but it can't just outright mean you have that chance to do that action under any circumstances.  So it's more natural to read than "I'm a third level fighter" but it is more misleading since you assume that percent is what you need, when many times during the game it will be adjusted downward, against the player.

To the original poster:  I too suggest you drop having different scales for Attributes and Skills.  It is too much work for a "introduction to roleplaying" system.  How do you want Attributes and Skills to work together?  If they aren't directly connected why are they different.  If Attributes modify skills, how did you want that to work?  As a base number?  As a maximum number?  As a bonus?  In my percentile system it is a maximum.  In D6 they are minimums (though D6 is not based on percentiles it has the same idea of Attributes and Skills).  In d20 the Attribute maps to a modifier added to the Skill.  d20 ends up with too many modifiers and lots of adding.  D6 ends up with too large pools and lots of counting.  My system prevents training skills past a given level and costs much more to raise the Attribute than the Skill, causing powerful characters to be stuck against a wall in some areas.

Another idea, if you want to have smaller scores for Attributes is to give them % scores, but only allow multiples of 10 (0, 10, 20, ... 80, 90, 100) then use 1/10 the Attribute in conjunction with a trained skill or simply the Attribute with an untrained skill.  So if Yuri has 68% Firearms: Pistol and 50% Dexterity he could fire his Glock with 73% accuracy but his Uzi with only 50% accuracy.  This might get funny if the Attribute is higher than the Skill, so rule that all Skills start at the Attribute level or something.  Or keeping math easier, just have the skill start at the attribute level and don't worry about adding the attribute fraction in the first place.