Percentile Systems? Just Say No!

[Tonguez]

I use to like percentage systems until I realised that d20 is a percentage system based on 5% intervals,

 

[Dethklok]

I don't like bell curves. Or at least I don't like bell curves created from rolling more than two dice. 2d10 create a rather nice bell curve. 3d6 not so much.

Agreed (although 2d10 isn't a bell curve, it's a triangle). I'm not convinced there's anything intrinsically better about 2dX than 3dX, but I would personally rather play 2d10 than 3d6.

As for calculating success chances, have you had a statistics course? Because the 3d6 Gaussian has a mean of 1.5 and an SD of 3.0, so given to two significant figures, the chances break down like they would for any Gaussian curve:

5 or better: 98%
8 or better: 84%
11 or better: 50%
14 or better: 16%
17 or better: 2.3%

I did.

No, you didn't, because I just read through the thread again, and you never did any more than restate your position. Even the rest of this is little more than a restatement on your position:

Frequent but minor positive reinforcement of behavior (many small rewards given often) is at least as powerful a motivator as periodic major reinforcement (big rewards given after longer time intervals). According to some behavioral research, its more powerful.

(And as a GM, it may even make your game more manageable, since the deltaV of advancement is more continuous.)

In addition, random rewards can reinforce behavior even more strongly than carefully regimented rewards.

The thing is, the math and basic advancement assumptions vary greatly between most percentile systems and D&D. D&D advances (nearly) everything simultaneously, but only after much adventuring. Percentile systems grant improvements more parsimoniously, but more frequently...and typically, not by the same amount for each PC. They do this by (in some systems) improving the PC immediately for making critical successes.

So certain percentile systems offer not only frequent small rewards on a regular schedule, but also ups the psychological ante by including variable small rewards.

Those are not irrelevant differences.

My argument, again, is that they are irrelevant, because, as I pointed out, there is clearly a point where no one cares about getting paid a penny every twenty minutes. Yes, fine, we could roll 1d3 every forty minutes and get paid that many pennies instead. But this doesn't change my argument at all. And outside of the context of this debate, where admitting that you wouldn't want to pay someone or get paid 1d3 cents every forty minutes would lose you a rhetorical point, no sane person would ever want to get paid their allowance every forty minutes. The only context under which reducing pay periods to the minimum possible period is investment banking where compound interest allows each fraction of a penny to earn interest towards more fractions of a penny. Are your adventurers investing their skill increases to get more skill increases? No? Any time you want to actually address this argument, well, that could be fun.

I use to like percentage systems until I realised that d20 is a percentage system based on 5% intervals

Yep.

Just as no one cares if you were driving down the road at 38 or 39 MPH, or whether you've been playing rpgs for 23 or 24 years, or whether it's 67 or 68 degrees Fahrenheit outside, I do not care if someone rolled an 84 or 85 on their 1d100. Of course, there are some contexts, such as a laboratory or a court of law, where that level of precision is meaningful. But in an imaginary world where we can only guess at what most quantities should be, and trust that the rules give us a simulation of reality that is at least sorta close, that level of precision is utterly meaningless.

 

[Argyle King]

Yeah, that's easy to understand. You don't find the need to add those dice together cumbersome, though? I'm not trying to insist that it is, but I've had people (adolescents in highschool) balk at basic addition and subtraction of single digit numbers in my games. Have you ever gamed with kids, or (especially) teenage girls?


Do you have any experience sparring? In dueling (with or without a shield), the limbs are far more commonly hit than the torso.

I don't find it difficult to add three dice together at all; especially when each individual die can only generate numbers from one to six. I have two small children (aged 5 and 6) who I sometimes use rpgs to help teach numbers, reading, and etc too; they don't seem to have a problem with it either. Granted, they're slower at it than I am, but that's understandable considering differences in age and experience. I'm sure it also helps that most board games I'm familiar with used d6s; I never had a problem counting dice when playing Yahtzee and it uses 5d6.


I wouldn't say I have experience with "sparring" in the sense you seem to be using the word. However, I do have combat experience. From my experience, it tends to be more difficult to put a bullet in the skull than it is to put one center mass. In melee, most of my experience is with grappling, but -against a skilled opponent who has no qualms about striking back- it is usually tougher to tie up a limb than it is to scissor the body or mount. From the perspective of gameplay, I also feel that making high value targets more difficult to strike makes sense as well; in GURPS, a hit to the head is very often a fight ending event, and a solid strike to the vitals tends to be lethal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My argument, again, is that they are irrelevant, because, as I pointed out, there is clearly a point where no one cares about getting paid a penny every twenty minutes. Yes, fine, we could roll 1d3 every forty minutes and get paid that many pennies instead. But this doesn't change my argument at all. And outside of the context of this debate, where admitting that you wouldn't want to pay someone or get paid 1d3 cents every forty minutes would lose you a rhetorical point, no sane person would ever want to get paid their allowance every forty minutes. The only context under which reducing pay periods to the minimum possible period is investment banking where compound interest allows each fraction of a penny to earn interest towards more fractions of a penny. Are your adventurers investing their skill increases to get more skill increases? No? Any time you want to actually address this argument, well, that could be fun.

1) the behavioral psychlogists disagree with you on the irrelevance of small, frequent rewards.

2) if I could set it up via computer, paying someone every 40 minutes is no issue to me.

3) pay me every 40 minutes, and I'll have fun using the time value of money. Yet I am still sane.

4) the way those percentile systems I described work, yes- there is a reinforcement loop: the better your skill rating, the more often your skill will improve by force of statistical probability. The better you are, the better you are at getting better.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

4) the way those percentile systems I described work, yes- there is a reinforcement loop: the better your skill rating, the more often your skill will improve by force of statistical probability. The better you are, the better you are at getting better.

Most of them have a counter-weight tamp where the chance of success drops as the skill rises -- look at Runequest for an example. To increase a skill, you need to succeed (roll under your skill #) to mark the skill as tested and then fail (roll over your skill #) to gain the increase when you get the chance to check. That also feeds into operant conditioning -- occasional rewards becoming less frequent.

Aftermath has a similar system though the chance of gaining the increase is static between 0 - 20% depending on your talent in that skill's area.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So it seems like the real questions are:

1) How much granularity is desirable?

2) Are some forms of dice-rolling more satisfying than others?

and

3) How do the answers to either of those change based on the genre, campaign, or scenario?

 

[Mike Eagling]

So it seems like the real questions are:

1) How much granularity is desirable?

2) Are some forms of dice-rolling more satisfying than others?

and

3) How do the answers to either of those change based on the genre, campaign, or scenario?

Indeed. And the the answers to each question will vary from player to player.

Personally, when I play RuneQuest or Call of Cthulhu I'm perfectly happy with the granularity of the d% system. I'm equally happy using d6s in Traveller and a multitude of polyhedrals for D&D and its various spin-offs. I'm not a fan of dice pools but I have dabbled with FATE/Fudge and that system shows some promise.

Which one is best? None of them. They all have their own merits to a greater or lesser extent and I find each enjoyable in their own way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So it seems like the real questions are:

1) How much granularity is desirable?

Anticipating the third question, for me, it depends on genre & campaign.

2) Are some forms of dice-rolling more satisfying than others?

I can't really say...I like rolling dice, but I can always satisfy that Pavlovian need by playing "Mason" when things slow down.

 

[Mike Eagling]

I can't really say...I like rolling dice, but I can always satisfy that Pavlovian need by playing "Mason" when things slow down.

Mason?

 

[MerricB]

I agree wholeheartedly! I also think percentiles would be ideal for Paranoia - the false precision would not be a disadvantage, but rather an evocative reflection of life in the psychotically bureaucratic Alpha Complex.

They were in the original edition of Paranoia! The second edition went to d20 instead.

Cheers!