Looking for a percentile RPG with a specific mechanic

[Lloyd Dupont]

just to add some confusion I want to share the Revolution D100 dice trick as an additional suggestion.

If your ten dice rolls higher than your unit dice it's a special (they call it advantage).
the higher your skill the higher your chance to roll a special. (it's not a straight 10% of skill but grow from 0% to 50% of your skill chance as skill goes from 0 to 100%)

Edited November 6, 2019 by Lloyd Dupont

[Mugen]

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You mean like 10, 20, 30, 40 etc?

Harnmaster uses numbers ending in 0 or 5 as the critical/special results. Where or not they are good or bad depends on if the roll is under your skill or over it. But is is simple and duplicates the special success chance from RQ easily without the need to do math or have a table.

But HArnmaster also doesn't use direct opposed rolls.

No, I meant rolling 08 or less if your skill is 8X%, or 15 or less if it's 15X%.

I like that characters with skill over 100% have benefits other than being able to succeed at tasks with high difficulty.

[Kloster]

1 minute ago, Mugen said:

I like that characters with skill over 100% have benefits other than being able to succeed at tasks with high difficulty.

Same for me. This is why I dislike the new RQG opposed rolls rule.

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Mugen said:

No, I meant rolling 08 or less if your skill is 8X%, or 15 or less if it's 15X%.

I like that characters with skill over 100% have benefits other than being able to succeed at tasks with high difficulty.

Okay, so 1/10th your skill, like the crtical chance in old Stormbringer.

 

5 hours ago, Kloster said:

Same for me. This is why I dislike the new RQG opposed rolls rule.

That could be handled by tying the success levels to the differences in rolls or to the tens die or some such. The problem is that % rolls doesn't lend themselves to opposed rolls very well. First off there is the pass/fail nature of the rolls. With most opposed roll systems a character will always generate some result, even if it isn't high enough to succeed, but with % dice failures tend to "zero out".

The other difficulty is that the roll high, except for a critical or some such  is counter intuitive since players want to roll high, except for a critical. The solution for that is to always use a roll low or roll high method, or to sepatate the success levels from high low completely (i.e. die rolls ending in a number) but a lot of people are convinced that the math behind that favors the underdog too much. But it really doesn't. It's just that most of the complaints against it focuses on a narrow set of results. It's like saying that roll low is unfair because if a guy with 5% skill rolls an 01 a guy with a 90% skill can't beat him. That statement is true, but it also completely ignores the fact that the 01 has a 1% chance of happening, that the 5% chance ends up with less than a 5% chance of winning, and that the 90% skill character will still win around 87% of the time. So 05% vs 90% with win probabilities of around 4.5% to 87% hardly favor the 5% characters.

[ThornPlutonius]

On 9/7/2019 at 11:30 AM, steamcraft said:

I am trying to find and RPG that is percentile. I have not had luck finding it, so I thought maybe someone on the d100 games forums might know. 

You assign attributes. Each skill is correlated to some attribute. The attribute rating is the base chance in a skill. You can then add points to skills resulting in your overall chance of success. For example, you might have Dexterity at 15, so everything with DEX is at least 15. Then, you have 20 in Gunnery, giving you a 35% skill in Gunnery. While I am thinking of uses the entire attribute rating as the base, not a certain percent of the attribute rating.

At first, I thought it was WH:40K, but that is not it. Eclipse Phase does have this mechanic. However, character creation is very long with a lot of points to spend. While it may be Eclipse Phase I am thinking of, I feel that what I had in mind.

So, is there another RPG with the mechanic or just EP?

Thanks

Orbis Terrarum has a similar mechanic.  Percentile basic characteristics, use of points, skills are in ranks, each rank level multiplied by 5% and then added to the relevant characteristic to obtain the target number for a roll.  I don't have time to exhaustively reread the rules, though. 

[Mugen]

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The problem is that % rolls doesn't lend themselves to opposed rolls very well. First off there is the pass/fail nature of the rolls. With most opposed roll systems a character will always generate some result, even if it isn't high enough to succeed, but with % dice failures tend to "zero out".

That is easily solved by considering that if both characters fail, the one with the highest roll wins nonetheless, even if it's a "weak victory".

However, it adds an exception to the rules system, and it's one of the reasons I'm not really a fan of roll-under systems these days.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Mugen

[ThornPlutonius]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:52 AM, Atgxtg said:

Okay, so 1/10th your skill, like the crtical chance in old Stormbringer.

 

That could be handled by tying the success levels to the differences in rolls or to the tens die or some such. The problem is that % rolls doesn't lend themselves to opposed rolls very well. First off there is the pass/fail nature of the rolls. With most opposed roll systems a character will always generate some result, even if it isn't high enough to succeed, but with % dice failures tend to "zero out".

The other difficulty is that the roll high, except for a critical or some such  is counter intuitive since players want to roll high, except for a critical. The solution for that is to always use a roll low or roll high method, or to sepatate the success levels from high low completely (i.e. die rolls ending in a number) but a lot of people are convinced that the math behind that favors the underdog too much. But it really doesn't. It's just that most of the complaints against it focuses on a narrow set of results. It's like saying that roll low is unfair because if a guy with 5% skill rolls an 01 a guy with a 90% skill can't beat him. That statement is true, but it also completely ignores the fact that the 01 has a 1% chance of happening, that the 5% chance ends up with less than a 5% chance of winning, and that the 90% skill character will still win around 87% of the time. So 05% vs 90% with win probabilities of around 4.5% to 87% hardly favor the 5% characters.

Opposed rolls work just fine in Mythras.

Some players want to roll high, but not all of them.  Many are smart enough to know that rolling high or rolling low is just an aspect of the dice mechanics.

Edited November 7, 2019 by ThornPlutonius

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

That is easily solved by considering that if both characters fail, the one with the highest roll wins nonetheless, even if it's a "weak victory".

First why, why did you go highest roll wins, why not lowest? 

Secondly,  in my post I was referring to generating some sortof result, in terms of using the die roll to generate soem sort of result or value. For example, let's say that a special success was one where you beat the oppomnents roll by a set amoun t. In most games, that works because the die rolls generate some sort of value, and wide differences in the die rolls can at least partially be due to skill. But with a pass/fail system, if the failed rolls "zero out"  that almost any success by the opponent isgreater when opposed by a zero.

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

However, it adds an exception to the rules system, and it's one of the reasons I'm not really a fan of roll-under systems these days.

Roll under systems are fine, it's just that most of them, especially those that incorporate success levels the way RQ does, were not designed for opposed rolls. Pendragon uses a roll under system and handles opposed rolls just fine. But it doesn't have as many success levels, nor does it fit them in on the bottom of the table.

[Atgxtg]

13 minutes ago, ThornPlutonius said:

Opposed rolls work just fine in Mythras.

Not really. Players want to roll low, and high.  For instance someone with a 80 skill can beat an opponent who rolls a 10 but rolling an 8 or less (a critical) or a 10 or more (higher result in the same success level). That's counter intuitive. 

Quote

Some players want to roll high, but not all of them.  Many are smart enough to know that rolling high or rolling low is just an aspect of the dice mechanics.

Yes,but it is counter intuitive. It's not as bad in Myhras as it is in BRP, though due to there being fewer success levels.

But I think it would probably be better to get success levels out of die roll/skill rating and instead based the results off of the actual die value or difference between die values. Then we could have our cake (success levels) and eat it too. It would eliminate the tables and scale up as characters improve. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Mugen]

31 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

First why, why did you go highest roll wins, why not lowest?

Simply because if both fails, the one with the lowest skill has greater chances to have the lowest roll (similarly to what happens when both succeeds).

Say A has 25% and B has 75%. If A fails, his roll will be between 26 and 100, while B will have a roll between 76 and 100.

31 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Roll under systems are fine, it's just that most of them, especially those that incorporate success levels the way RQ does, were not designed for opposed rolls. Pendragon uses a roll under system and handles opposed rolls just fine. But it doesn't have as many success levels, nor does it fit them in on the bottom of the table.

That's why I said "I'm not a fan of roll-under" and not "roll under systems have a problem". The problem is with me, not with roll-under systems.

Not really. Players want to roll low, and high.  For instance someone with a 80 skill can beat an opponent who rolls a 10 but rolling an 8 or less (a critical) or a 10 or more (higher result in the same success level). That's counter intuitive. 

Yes,but it is counter intuitive. It's not as bad in Myhras as it is in BRP, though due to there being fewer success levels.

Yes, that's counter-intuitive.

But awarding success to the low roll is not right from a philosophical point of view, as it gives better chances of success to the lowest skill in case both achieve the same level of success.

You can use Margin of success (like in WarHammer 4), but it requires you extra substractions, and gives odds that are very similar to "roll under black jack".

Edited November 7, 2019 by Mugen

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Simply because if both fails, the one with the lowest skill has greater chances to have the lowest roll (similarly to what happens when both succeeds).

No, it's percentile dice so both have an equal chance of having the lowest roll. The difference is that thge one with the higher skill has a better chance of a high roll being successful.

 

Quote

Say A has 25% and B has 75%. If A fails, his roll will be between 26 and 100, while B will have a roll between 76 and 100.

That is a flawed view as it overlooks the reason why both fail, namely that the higher skilled character will succeed on rolls that are failures for the lower skilled character. For example, compare player A with 5% skill against Player B with a 95% skill. There is only a 4.75% chance of both character's failing. So you are designing the resolution system around the least likely case. Realistically, ignoring success levels for the moment, the odds break down as follows:

A succeeds, B fails = 0.25% (.05x.05) = A wins

A fails, B succeeds = 90.25% (.95x.95) = B Wins

Both succeed:  4.75% (.05x.95)

Both fail 4.75% (.95x.05)

 

So you don't have to go high roll wins, here as the majority of the contests will fall into the B wins category., The odds actually increase for B once you factor in for success levels, allow B to take an even larger share of the both succeed and both fail results. 

 

 

 

Quote

That's why I said "I'm not a fan of roll-under" and not "roll under systems have a problem". The problem is with me, not with roll-under systems.

That's fair. I'm not a fan of opposed rolls combined with success levels. I think it's double dipping, and in the case of BRPO counter intuitive. I think it could be resolved better with one method or the other. 

Quote

Yes, that's counter-intuitive.

But awarding success to the low roll is not right from a philosophical point of view, as it gives better chances of success to the lowest skill in case both achieve the same level of success.

Except that is missing out on the fact that the characters won't bet getting the same success level as much as the higher skileld character winning. Using my example above, both characters will never get the same success level, as any result that is a sucvcess for A would be a crtical success for B, and any roll that would be a failure for B would be a fumble for A.

 

Quote

You can use Margin of success (like in WarHammer 4), but it requires you extra substractions, and gives odds that are very similar to "roll under black jack".

Yes, but the extra subtractions could be kept simple (just read the tens die and ignore the 1s, for example a 64-47 would just be a margin of "2" (6-4) instead of 17) . Or you can just tie the success level to one of the dice be it the ones or the tens. For instance all dice that end in 1 or 0 could be critical or some such. 

 

The blackjack method isn't bad, assuming you don't have a lot of success levels to complicate it. Pendragon works because the critical number is equal to the skill value, or any result of 20+. HeroQuest works becuase the crtical number is always 1, and the game allows for "bumps".

But I think the method currently in use for BRP/RQG  is really the worst of both rolls. Success level only games handle it better, and opposed roll only games handle it better. It kinda negates the whole point of opposed rolls, namely that they were a simple and quick way to resolve a skill vs. skill contest.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Mugen]

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but the extra subtractions could be kept simple (just read the tens die and ignore the 1s, for example a 64-47 would just be a margin of "2" (6-4) instead of 17) .

That's how it's done in WH4, and it still has 2 substractions that doesn't exist in roll-under blackjack.

The benefit here is that the system does not need to make special cases if only one character rolls under their skill. Both opponent roll under their skill and determine their Margin of success (which can be negative), and use the difference as final Margin of Success.

But it would be even simpler to just roll 1d10+10s of the skills and do the substraction.

[Atgxtg]

2 minutes ago, Mugen said:

That's how it's done in WH4, and it still has 2 substractions that doesn't exist in roll-under blackjack.

The benefit here is that the system does not need to make special cases if only one character rolls under their skill. Both opponent roll under their skill and determine their Margin of success (which can be negative), and use the difference as final Margin of Success.

But it would be even simpler to just roll 1d10+10s of the skills and do the substraction.

LOL! Yes exactly. I tried writing up a system around the old Top Secret SI method of 10s die is the damage and the "win", 1s die is the hit location, and using the difference  and quickly came to the conclusion that the whole thing would work much better if it were just rolling 1D10+a skill mod, or scaled the die skize by skill (i.e. 60% skill rolls 1D60). D100 is just not as well suited to opposed rolls as smaller dice, or multiple dice.

[ThornPlutonius]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. Players want to roll low, and high.  For instance someone with a 80 skill can beat an opponent who rolls a 10 but rolling an 8 or less (a critical) or a 10 or more (higher result in the same success level). That's counter intuitive. 

Yes,but it is counter intuitive. It's not as bad in Myhras as it is in BRP, though due to there being fewer success levels.

But I think it would probably be better to get success levels out of die roll/skill rating and instead based the results off of the actual die value or difference between die values. Then we could have our cake (success levels) and eat it too. It would eliminate the tables and scale up as characters improve. 

 

 

it is quite intuitive to me.  Roll below skill percentage, but higher skill still gets an advantage in "ties".  It is how I immediately thought to do it when I read how the opposed rolls were written to give the lower skill and advantage in ties.  One could, of course, think of other ways to deal with the situation.

Of course, "intuitive" is not always correct.  There is much about reality (esp. in higher math and physics) that is counter-intuitive.

Edited November 7, 2019 by ThornPlutonius

[Sam E.]

2 hours ago, ThornPlutonius said:

it is quite intuitive to me. 

And to me.  It's fine if someone doesn't like it, but one ought not pretend one's subjective preferences are objective flaws by using fancy philosophical terms such as "counter-intuitive" ...

[Atgxtg]

37 minutes ago, TheophilusCarter said:

And to me.  It's fine if someone doesn't like it, but one ought not pretend one's subjective preferences are objective flaws by using fancy philosophical terms such as "counter-intuitive" ...

Counter intuitive isn't a fancy philosophical term. it means: contrary to intuition or to common-sense expectation (but often nevertheless true).

 Now a process where you want to roll low for a better sucessl level but higher than someone one with the same success level is counter intuitive.

For example, look at a contest between two characters each with a 40% skill. The first character rolls a 10 and the second looses with a 09. Now the fact that the guy who rolled a 9 would have won if he rolled an 8 or less or an 11 or more is counter intuitive as common sense expectations would be for one or the other of those two situations to be true, but not both.

 

[g33k]

Like mileage, intuition may vary...

 

 

Something may be very intuitive to me, and counter-intuitive to you.  Which of us is "right"?   Well... both of us.

Until we try to argue that ONLY our position is right (or is "more right); then we're wrong.

[weasel fierce]

One might suggest that most GM's would do better in getting rid of as many opposed rolls as possible, rather than trying to add more of them.

Letting the player roll, only for their success to be taken away by the GM rolling and saying "Sorry, the bad guy did better, so that good roll was wasted" is not overly fun.

 

99% of situations where you think an opposed roll is needed, just have the player roll and move on. If the opponent is much better than them, make it a -20 or so.

 

[Atgxtg]

On 11/14/2019 at 6:12 PM, g33k said:

Like mileage, intuition may vary...

Something may be very intuitive to me, and counter-intuitive to you.  Which of us is "right"?   Well... both of us.

Until we try to argue that ONLY our position is right (or is "more right); then we're wrong.

No argument there. It can be very subjective.

[Atgxtg]

36 minutes ago, weasel fierce said:

One might suggest that most GM's would do better in getting rid of as many opposed rolls as possible, rather than trying to add more of them.

Letting the player roll, only for their success to be taken away by the GM rolling and saying "Sorry, the bad guy did better, so that good roll was wasted" is not overly fun.

 

99% of situations where you think an opposed roll is needed, just have the player roll and move on. If the opponent is much better than them, make it a -20 or so.

 

Yes, but opposed rolls and a  big thing now in  most RPGs, and rightly so. It probably is a better way to resolve conflict. It's just that RQ came out long before that wasn't desired for them. Hence the resistance table. If Steve Perrin, Roy Tourney and friends had though of opposed rolls the system would have been different. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Atgxtg