Percentile Systems? Just Say No!

[Dethklok]

In a d% system 34% is statistically different from 36%, when rolled on percentile dice that isn't a false precision. Someone with a 2% higher skill is more skilled if only fractionally so, and about 2% of the time that will matter.

Throughout the course of a day, a person's ability to run, write an essay, or hit a target will fluctuate. To say "My ability to hit a target of X size at Y meters distant with rife Z is exactly 57%" is only plausible if we assume that my character has no existence apart from a set of numbers on a character sheet. If we're trying to imagine an actual person in a fantasy world whose characteristics are measured or represented numerically, then I really do think the precision is false.

Your 2d6, CoC for example will actually lead to faster advancement as you progression steps are bigger than in a d% system

Yes. Yes, but look:

1. It wasn't Call of Cthulhu, and wasn't intended to be "Cthulhu with 2d6." Skill checks were awarded only for ties and crits, not successes, so they were actually received at less the rate as in a Cthulhu session. Also the skill set was different - it was smaller, so overall a skill improvement was more useful than it would be in Call of Cthulhu.

2. We set the system for the rate of advancement we liked best. It's elementary to speed or slow advancement by making advancement checks easier more difficult, or giving them out under more or less stringent circumstances.

At least in a percentile system a 1% improvement is always a 1% improvement.

Some people do like flat probability curves, yes. But X% is always X% isn't necessarily a benefit. There's a reason GURPS uses 3d6 to get that bell curve.

Actually I deliberately paid attention to your original argument, which I disagree with because I believe it confounds an opinion with a fact.

OK, I get that. I do see that you are paying attention to my first post or posts.

I also believe the reason you give for this argument (vis-a-vis false precision) does not take into account other reasons that may exist for using a percentile system.

Oh, absolutely! Remember where I said percentile systems are appropriate for certain games, like a high-tech game or Straight Paranoia? And there are lots more things I've been wanting to say, but haven't had much chance to.

For better or for worse, the discussion goes where the arguments are. Bagpuss isn't having any of this false precision stuff; with you it seems more to do with my claims that a mechanic can ever be better or more appropriate than another. So for him, I'm just going to have to talk about precision a while longer. With you, it's going to be this idea of zillions of d10s.

Claiming that a deliberately fallacious random number generator somehow proves your point is a red herring.

Mike, I want to ask you, what do you think my point is?

You said yourself that your post was a deliberately controversial statement, so it should come as no surprise that someone might disagree with you. Claiming that I'm not paying attention is disingenuous. I've provided examples of d%-based games that I consider to be good or bad. What I take issue with is your claim that any given system is categorically better or worse than all others. Such a claim is an opinion and therefore subjective.

So you would find a dGoogol system fun?

See, it isn't disingenuous of me to say you don't seem to be paying attention to this argument, when I keep making it and you keep ignoring it. I'm not suggesting you're being deliberately obtuse, or that you are looking at it and thinking, "I can't address this, so I just won't respond and hope it goes away." It's a big thread, and I probably missed stuff you've said, too. But I see this issue as being critical to your disagreement with me. You've either got to bite the bullet and say, "Yes, I'd love to play a dGoogol system, it would be, um, really great" at which point laughter will ensue, or else you have to admit that, fine, some dice systems really do use too much granularity, even if d100 doesn't have too much. Or you may come out of left field with some other scintillating point; I'll wait and see.

This post is just incredibly amusing to me.

Glad to have been of service!

And, of course, if literally everyone objected to how "un-fun" something is, it would still be subjective. That's how fun works. Just because nobody sees something as fun doesn't mean that it's objective, now. It just means everyone, subjectively, agrees.

Eh, at this point we may just be arguing over semantics. It's OK with me if you want to draw a distinction between everyone subjectively agreeing and something being objectively true.

Even then, though, wouldn't it strike you as interesting that millions of human beings, each with an individual opinion, might all agree about something being not fun? And if that were the case, then would it be unwarranted to say that this agreement probably came from their universally apprehending some genuinely objective feature about life in this universe, even if they don't know what it is?

Okay, man, keep telling other people what is objectively un-fun. I'm sure you'll convince everyone else at some point. You have fun with that, while I'll be having fun with other things. At least, until I know that it's actually not fun... As always, play what you like

Absolutely, play what you like! But it isn't a coincidence that no one throws a hundred d10s for task resolution.

I'm not trying to tell people that game system X can't be fun because it uses a poorly considered mechanic. I do think that when people insist that all mechanics are equal for all purposes, they're not really being honest with themselves. It seems to me that people like and enjoy a game, and then feel the need to defend it, even where it is weak. Doesn't the ability to identify, admit the existence of, and explore good and bad points of rpgs show a developed attitude toward the hobby? When is the last time somebody told wine tasters that they're all crazy when they talk about some wines being better than other wines, and then have the audacity to agree with each other about it? They may be snobs, but who seriously goes up to them and says the Bordeaux isn't any better than their $8 bottle of Ripple?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Eh, at this point we may just be arguing over semantics.

Well, no, but okay. I think that's very relevant in a discussion about objectivity.

Even then, though, wouldn't it strike you as interesting that millions of human beings, each with an individual opinion, might all agree about something being not fun?

I don't think it's particularly interesting, but I can see how that might help inform game design, yes.

And if that were the case, then would it be unwarranted to say that this agreement probably came from their universally apprehending some genuinely objective feature about life in this universe, even if they don't know what it is?

Nope, still not objective. And, on top of that, we're talking hypotheticals; all we can do is speculate that most people wouldn't like something, and work with that. It's pretty much the same in practice, except it's not saying, for sure, what is "objectively un-fun" or the like. And thus, to me, much more useful.

I do think that when people insist that all mechanics are equal for all purposes, they're not really being honest with themselves.

I actually don't really see this being said. Can you point it out to me in this thread? Because, if someone said that, I'd agree with you, in a sense. All methods aren't equal for all purposes.

It seems to me that people like and enjoy a game, and then feel the need to defend it, even where it is weak.

I have totally seen this, yep. Good friend of mine does it often with White Wolf.

Doesn't the ability to identify, admit the existence of, and explore good and bad points of rpgs show a developed attitude toward the hobby?

Yes, I think so. But, labeling bits as "objectively un-fun" strikes me as a rather primitive view, in that you can't possibly make that statement and have it make sense. You can talk about "nearly everyone" or "basically nobody" or the like, and it will sometimes be true (rolling 100d10 for everything), but it won't always be true, of course. In this sense, honestly talking about weak points is a good thing; trying to put "objective" labels on fun, not so much.

When is the last time somebody told wine tasters that they're all crazy when they talk about some wines being better than other wines, and then have the audacity to agree with each other about it? They may be snobs, but who seriously goes up to them and says the Bordeaux isn't any better than their $8 bottle of Ripple?

As it's taste dependent, which also varies wildly from person to person, I'm sure there are people that feel that way. I strongly dislike steak, and would rather have a piece of chicken. I'm not crazy, it's just my taste. I also hate chocolate, and would rather have corn, taste-wise; I just love the taste (it was my favorite food as a kid).

I get I'm a statistical outlier, here, but I do exist. Unlike many other posters, I have no problem talking in generalities about how most people feel, or what most people might enjoy. However, I'm not about to agree that objectively labeling fun is somehow correct. Because, it's really not. So, I'll participate with you in speculation, but not in the labeling. Up to you. As always, play what you like

 

[Mike Eagling]

Mike, I want to ask you, what do you think my point is?

I suspect your point is that you want me to admit a dGoogle mechanic is a terrible idea. I further suspect that if I were to do this you would then say something along the lines of "A-ha! So if a dGoogle mechanic is bad you must surely admit that a d% system could be bad too?" thereby helping you "prove" your argument.


Only it doesn't. That line of argument is a logical fallacy.


Of course if that wasn't your point then I've obviously missed it, so feel free to enlighten me.

So you would find a dGoogol system fun?

No, I happen to agree that in my opinion such a hypothetical system would be bad.

some dice systems really do use too much granularity, even if d100 doesn't have too much.

My argument has never been about the granularity of dice systems. My objection has been your insistence that "better" is objective. It isn't. Better is the comparative of good. Good is subjective. Hence, better is subjective by extension.

It's OK with me if you want to draw a distinction between everyone subjectively agreeing and something being objectively true.

Good because there is a distinction, as I've explained.

I do think that when people insist that all mechanics are equal for all purposes, they're not really being honest with themselves.

I don't see anyone doing this either.

Doesn't the ability to identify, admit the existence of, and explore good and bad points of rpgs show a developed attitude toward the hobby?

Absolutely! I'm all in favour of exploring good and bad design. But that debate is still subjective.

 

[Dethklok]

I don't think it's particularly interesting

Really? Then what about this:

As it's taste dependent, which also varies wildly from person to person, I'm sure there are people that feel that way. I strongly dislike steak, and would rather have a piece of chicken. I'm not crazy, it's just my taste. I also hate chocolate, and would rather have corn, taste-wise; I just love the taste (it was my favorite food as a kid).

When you write things along these lines, I want to ask whether you think it's not interesting to ask whether the fact that you like food, and dislike the taste of (say) ammonia, is indicative of a preference instilled in you through generations of evolution / imbued into you by an omnipotent creator who wanted you to live? Because the desire of living organisms to eat things that provide energy is predicated on entirely objective qualities of living beings - namely that they require energy in a digestible source. True, we may point out that there are many other factors which go into nutrition, and different people will disagree on whether they prefer chicken or steak. But this doesn't invalidate the notion that dietary preferences, at their core, help living species to identify and absorb nutrients, or that (in simple terms) substances with better nutrient content are better foods than substances with poor nutrient content.

Basically, I believe that both subjective and objective elements go into forming preferences about food, games, and any form of pleasure. You seem to assume that, because some preferences are clearly subjective, all preferences must be subjective - up till this point, your rebuttals to my position have taken the form of "some preferences are subjective and personal, see?" But this isn't a challenge to my position. Can you show that no preferences can rest on objective criteria? Note that doing so may require showing how there is nothing objectively better about broccoli as a food in comparison to, say, Radium as a food.

I do think that when people insist that all mechanics are equal for all purposes, they're not really being honest with themselves.
I actually don't really see this being said. Can you point it out to me in this thread? Because, if someone said that, I'd agree with you, in a sense. All methods aren't equal for all purposes.

You might want to clarify your position, then - if all positions are subjective, than none can be better than another, and all systems are equal for all purposes. Thus, there can be no genuine weaknesses in White Wolf systems without first positing that some things about games can be objectively stronger or weaker than others.

I suspect your point is that you want me to admit a dGoogle mechanic is a terrible idea.

Nope, not even close. Although I am coming to realize that with you, I should probably count myself lucky to eke out an admission that you're posting on EN world in a thread created by Dethklok.

 

[Mike Eagling]

Nope, not even close. Although I am coming to realize that with you, I should probably count myself lucky to eke out an admission that you're posting on EN world in a thread created by Dethklok.

Then I evidently did miss your point, for which I apologise. Please clarify it for me and I'll address it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

When you write things along these lines, I want to ask whether you think it's not interesting to ask whether the fact that you like food, and dislike the taste of (say) ammonia, is indicative of a preference instilled in you through generations of evolution / imbued into you by an omnipotent creator who wanted you to live?

Interesting ≠ informative, which I made clear when I said "I don't think it's particularly interesting, but I can see how that might help inform game design, yes."

True, we may point out that there are many other factors which go into nutrition, and different people will disagree on whether they prefer chicken or steak. But this doesn't invalidate the notion that dietary preferences, at their core, help living species to identify and absorb nutrients, or that (in simple terms) substances with better nutrient content are better foods than substances with poor nutrient content.

Which wasn't what you were commenting on whatsoever when I replied to you. You were stating that certain subjective things seem more objective ("They may be snobs, but who seriously goes up to them and says the Bordeaux isn't any better than their $8 bottle of Ripple?"). I'm rejecting that notion. You weren't commenting on whether or not people evolved to like the taste of nutritious things when I replied to you.

Basically, I believe that both subjective and objective elements go into forming preferences about food, games, and any form of pleasure.

Okay.

You seem to assume that, because some preferences are clearly subjective, all preferences must be subjective

In regards to what "fun" or "un-fun" is, most definitely.

- up till this point, your rebuttals to my position have taken the form of "some preferences are subjective and personal, see?"

No, I'm speaking much more universally than that. I'm not saying some preferences are subjective and personal, I'm saying that they all are, at least as far as "fun" or "un-fun" goes.

But this isn't a challenge to my position.

It seems like it is.

Can you show that no preferences can rest on objective criteria?

I'm not going to bother arguing with you over whether or not "fun" or "un-fun" is subjective. To question that is ludicrous, and if you want to have that conversation, take it up with another poster.

You might want to clarify your position, then - if all positions are subjective,

On fun, dude.

than none can be better than another,

We can objectively measure how well systems perform certain tasks, like give consistent results. We can't say that it's objectively more fun, though. We're only measuring, objectively, how a certain system achieves certain results (that's not based on preference).

and all systems are equal for all purposes.

No, I disagreed with this. Hopefully you can see why, now.

Thus, there can be no genuine weaknesses in White Wolf systems without first positing that some things about games can be objectively stronger or weaker than others.

Right, which you can do. Just not "fun." I never, ever questioned the fun he had. Make sense? As always, play what you like

 

[Elysia]

Yes, I think so. But, labeling bits as "objectively un-fun" strikes me as a rather primitive view, in that you can't possibly make that statement and have it make sense. You can talk about "nearly everyone" or "basically nobody" or the like, and it will sometimes be true (rolling 100d10 for everything), but it won't always be true, of course.

What an amusing view! I guess that you must find science to be primitive then since it tends to rely heavily on statistical models to prove or disprove many of its theories.

As it's taste dependent, which also varies wildly from person to person, I'm sure there are people that feel that way. I strongly dislike steak, and would rather have a piece of chicken. I'm not crazy, it's just my taste. I also hate chocolate, and would rather have corn, taste-wise; I just love the taste (it was my favorite food as a kid).

Just because one individual atom of carbon is different (and yes a few indeed are different) doesn’t mean that there is no objective theory of carbon atoms. You may notice through subjective experimentation, that burning one lump of coal yields remarkably similar results to burning another. Could there be an underlying objective principle at work?

Throughout the course of a day, a person's ability to run, write an essay, or hit a target will fluctuate. To say "My ability to hit a target of X size at Y meters distant with rife Z is exactly 57%" is only plausible if we assume that my character has no existence apart from a set of numbers on a character sheet. If we're trying to imagine an actual person in a fantasy world whose characteristics are measured or represented numerically, then I really do think the precision is false.

Absolutely, if you were able to model any of these systems 98% accurately, you would need a computer to process all the data, and like you point out, the error in the system makes that kind of accuracy rather a moot point. (That’s assuming of course that it were possible to model that accurately in the first place; physicists can’t even model the 3 body system of particles let alone a real n-body system.) Anyway, too much precision is really not much, should I say it… fun. Ehem. Give me a spherical cow any day. (Sorry, physics joke!)

And if that were the case, then would it be unwarranted to say that this agreement probably came from their universally apprehending some genuinely objective feature about life in this universe, even if they don't know what it is?

Might be a bit strong, but yes, the implication would be that an underlying factor might exist such that an objective feature could be pulled out…
Indeed, that would make for a fascinating study.

Doesn't the ability to identify, admit the existence of, and explore good and bad points of rpgs show a developed attitude toward the hobby?

I would think, and moreover I would go so far as to say that the inability to recognize when something could be improved is primitive.

Basically, I believe that both subjective and objective elements go into forming preferences about food, games, and any form of pleasure.

The middle position is often the correct (and therefore better?) one.

You seem to assume that, because some preferences are clearly subjective, all preferences must be subjective - up till this point, your rebuttals to my position have taken the form of "some preferences are subjective and personal, see?" But this isn't a challenge to my position. Can you show that no preferences can rest on objective criteria?

Hmmm… many people seem to fall prey to this fallacy – some therefore all.

Note that doing so may require showing how there is nothing objectively better about broccoli as a food in comparison to, say, Radium as a food.

Hehehehe….

 

[JamesonCourage]

What an amusing view! I guess that you must find science to be primitive then since it tends to rely heavily on statistical models to prove or disprove many of its theories.

Are you telling me that science can prove the objectivity of fun? If so, show me.

Just because one individual atom of carbon is different (and yes a few indeed are different) doesn’t mean that there is no objective theory of carbon atoms. You may notice through subjective experimentation, that burning one lump of coal yields remarkably similar results to burning another. Could there be an underlying objective principle at work?

This has absolutely nothing to do with something that is purely opinion, such as what people find "fun" or "un-fun". It's completely different from what you're talking about. As always, play what you like

 

[jonesy]

When is the last time somebody told wine tasters that they're all crazy when they talk about some wines being better than other wines, and then have the audacity to agree with each other about it? They may be snobs, but who seriously goes up to them and says the Bordeaux isn't any better than their $8 bottle of Ripple?

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/02/the-subjectivity-of-wine/
http://www.slashfood.com/2011/04/15/blind-tasters-cant-tell-cheap-wines-from-expensive/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...t-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd say those links were full of awesome, but that would be subjective.