Convince me d% games are bad

>>54410793
The d20 system has been literally refined for fifty years, making it superior by virtue of being the most popular system for more than a decade.

>hurr durr I shoot Cthulhu in the face with a boat and then roll to go INSANE because things mankind was never meant to know!!!!!! xD

This is the average level of retardation of your typical d% player.

>>54410793
>d%
>literally just a d20 with 5% increments

That's why. Also roll-under is garbage compared to roll-over in general.

>>54410825
Actually, you're discounting Runequest as being the Third Oldest RPG after D&D and Tunnels and Trolls, it's had almost as much time to mature, and RuneQuest being the origin of most modern d100 systems, actually presents a better case than Cthulhu ever did.

>>54410844
My counterargument is the "Nat 1/20 lol" meme.

>>54410793
Because it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to use the changes between it and a d20 (or a d10, they're all the exact same) to any effect whatsoever, so it's LITERALLY just 4 results that don't matter on top of every one that does when compared to a d20.

Also, because roll-under is bad in every situation ever no matter what, and there is no such thing as a d% system that uses anything else.

I'd say "ironic shitposting is still shitposting" but that'd be a bit hypocritical.

File: 135.png (124KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 680x680px

>>54410970
>Achtchually

Did you not bother to read OP's post before replying?

>>54410970
>My counterargument is the "Nat 1/20 lol" meme.

That's a player problem, not a system problem.

Why the fuck is roll under bad?

>>54411620
It runs counter to the very prevalent human instinct that high numbers of things are goo and regarding desired values you actually alternate during the game depending on context. Stats: high number good, roll: high number bad.
It is not terrible, but it lacks elegance.

>>54410793
>>54410825
>>54410970
>>54411620
>>54411777
If these aren't all the same guy, they might as well be.

>>54410844
>>54411030
>>54411620
I weep for this guy, though. He came here for intelligent conversation.

>>54411873
>If these aren't all the same guy, they might as well be.

Sometimes the correct opinion happens to be also the popular one.

>>54411777
That's the most retarded thing I read today. What's better? Finishing 1st at a race or finishing 259th? Third or First World? Passing your exam the first time or having to repeat it five times?

>>54410825
>The d20 system has been literally refined for fifty years, making it superior by virtue of being the most popular system for more than a decade.


Serious talk here, i'd rather have 3d6 or 2d10 over d20.

Real systems have curves.

>>54411777
The best roll under systems are ones where you do better the higher you roll, unless you go over the limit set by your abilities. So high numbers on your sheet are good, and high rolls at the table are good, if you can handle them. And it makes your degree of success much easier to read than for example the Warhammer RPGs' subtraction method.

>>54410989
>Also, because roll-under is bad in every situation ever no matter what, and there is no such thing as a d% system that uses anything else.

Rolemaster/MERP. learn your history before you go spouting off like that.

File: 1438165975486.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>54412103
It's nice that technology and society as a whole have advanced to the point that even blind retards are able to live the shitposting life.

I don't particularly like percentile roll-under systems but they have the distinct and very powerful advantage of making the odds on any roll intelligible to the most mathematically stunted player.

Anyone can understand that a modified skill rating of 65 means a 65% chance of success, and act sensibly on that information. But tell someone they need to roll 8 or higher on a D20 to succeed and a lot of people aren't going to grasp the odds right away.

File: 3d20m master race.png (101KB, 1333x850px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1333x850px

>>54410793
Roll-under is great, but there is no reason to have that many different values. More than 20 values (1d20) is pretty much stretching it, and 12 values (2d6) for different outcomes is usually more than enough.
Besides, d% has no probability curve.

If I had to pick my favorite resolution mechanic, I'd pick 3d20m roll-under.

>>54412186
Well the beginning of your post was a sensible point. It's impossible to make a d100 based game where anyone gives a shit about increments of less than 5

>>54410825

D20 is D%, though. Just on a scale 1/5th as large. It's still a single die and modifier resolution system.

>>54412236
>12 values (2d6)
Well shit, I could learn something from you for my "gibbering idiot" persona I put on for these threads.

Also, I forgot
>probability curves like it means anything in a vacuum
Thanks for reminding me to always improve, anon.

>>54412236
that's an insanely complicated way to roll dice all day, just for the satisfaction of knowing that if you plotted all your rolls on a graph it would curve smoothly

>>54412375

I myself routinely fail tasks I'm skilled at and succeed at ones I know nothing about due to a far too wide roll variance.

>>54412375
>complicated way to roll dice
Anon, did you drop out of kindergarten? How the fuck is basic addition complicated? How rolling dice in general might be complicated to person with functioning (i presume) arms?

>>54412236
>that sweet 3d6
Seriously why does anyone use anything different?

File: F 4.png (72KB, 263x184px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 263x184px

d20 and d100 are the same thing, just scaled by 5. The real good system is 3d10. This is what the most historically and mythically accurate RPG ever created uses. And you know what else? A result of or less 6 is a critical failure. Why you ask, because you're an idiot who doesn't have a Master's degree? Because the chances of 6 or less on 3d10 is exactly 2%.

>>54412236
>2D6 = 12 values
Just keep posting pretty graphs and don't pretend to know anything about math.

>>54412251
>checking for a value on either die
>adding the dice together for damage (or highest - smallest, or [...])
>flipping the numbers as a bonus (or penalty)
>sub-5% criticals meaning they can be worth more than dealing not even double damage
Nope, absolutely nothing can be done to differentiate the two. It's only about the pass/fail odds.

>>54412587
>6 or less
It out to be a 3. I want my one in a thousand chances to be literally 1 in 1000 chances.

>>54412494
I was talking about rolling 3d20 and picking the middle, apparently the favoured method from that post.

OK, "complicated" is hyperbole, but in the average game session you roll a lot of dice and taking three and picking one in place of just rolling one will, over time, substantially slow things up. I have to wonder if getting the same range of results but less swingy is really worth the fuss.

>>54410825
>The d20 system has been literally refined for fifty years
that's a lie. it has been repeatedly changed to justify hype for a new edition.

>making it superior by virtue of being the most popular system for more than a decade.
just because it has changed it doesnt mean it has changed for the better

>This is the average level of retardation of your typical d% player.
still more reasonable than your average deendeefag though

>>54410844
if a system leverages the granularity of the d100 though, it becomes superior to d20. cue in the lamentation of all the deendeefags complaining about 5% chances for critical success/failure. once again d20 BTFO

>roll-under is garbage compared to roll-over in general
rolemaster is d100 roll-over, so not an argument regarding d20 vs d100.

>>54410970
>Actually, you're discounting Runequest as being the Third Oldest RPG after D&D
someone has never heard of Boothill RPG

>>54410989
>Because it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to use the changes between it and a d20 (or a d10, they're all the exact same) to any effect whatsoever
bwahahaha
>roll-under
stop it, my sides!

>>54411777
literally not an argument. nice trips though.

>>54410793
Playing d% gives you AIDS.

File: harnmaster_sheet.png (988KB, 622x896px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 622x896px

>>54412584
see >>54412206

>>54412251
>It's impossible to make a d100 based game where anyone gives a shit about increments of less than 5
detailed hit location charts are awesome. and once again are deendeefags BTFO.
when will they ever learn?

File: KJP_4-5_Tank_Destroyer_German_Army.jpg (623KB, 1022x767px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1022x767px

>>54410793
I've actually been thinking of a historical wargaming system that runs off of percentile dice and actual history. Basically the number you need to roll lower than is the percentile throughout history that one tank has bested another. The only problem I can see so far is how certain tanks weren't ever used or tested against certain other tanks.

>>54413369

>All of human warfare boiled down to just tanks vs. tanks

But why tho

>>54413308
>detailed hit location charts are awesome.

I posit that they are not awesome, and in fact are concentrated AIDS.

>>54410825
>The d20 system has been literally refined for fifty years
It was published in 2000 fucktard

>>54413541
And I posit my foot up your ass, which I can do, thanks to locational damage.