I'll third that.

I ranted extensively against the math change in one of those other threads Tom mentioned, but in the interest of completeness I'll repeat my position: the new system is like fingernails on a chalkboard to my O.C.D.

Counting is the first mathematical procedure most of us learn, and (unless you don't use currency) it's the one we use most often in our daily lives, so I have no problem simply counting increments of 10 to determine accurate DoS. I don't consider a potential 9% error to be insignificant, and I don't find the unintuitive 'Drop the 1s digit, subtract the 10s digit, then add 1 back' formula to be as silky-smooth as others seem to. Plus it's irritating to roll two dice just to treat the result as a single-digit number...

So what you're left with is the fact that the 1's digit no longer counts for degrees of success. Okay. I don't see you complaining about your Inner OCD because psychic powers no longer add the willpower bonus. The rules work differently now. DoS isn't about how many ten points below you are, it's about the difference between your characteristic bonus and the tens digit of your roll. That is not screwing up the math of DoS because DoS aren't some kind of mathematical constant. Arguments about this changed mechanic not matching up to an old mechanic are basically boiling down to "no, change bad!" followed by Frankenstein stumbling around arguing how objectively more complicated math is easier because he's more used to doing it.

Edit: and you're rolling two dice to treat them as one of two categories, success or fail. I feel like you're being obtuse by ignoring the fact that the ones digit is still important for whether you succeed or fail. It's still there, don't worry!

But my main concern is that the Degrees of Success I roll under this new system will be farther from the platonic ideal of a Degree of Success and thus of lower quality. How can I really feel good about rolling well if the Degrees of Success I get from it aren't real Degrees of Success.

But my main concern is that the Degrees of Success I roll under this new system will be farther from the platonic ideal of a Degree of Success and thus of lower quality. How can I really feel good about rolling well if the Degrees of Success I get from it aren't real Degrees of Success.

It's honestly hilarious how there are pretty obviously two schools of thought at play on this forum and in spite of how much we argue, the final product from FFG manages to ignore both sides.

Eben if the community AGREES on one thing, FFG manages very well to ignore it ;D

I have rarely heard someone saying anything against Beta1 fatigue or opposed evading so far.

Arguments about this changed mechanic not matching up to an old mechanic are basically boiling down to "no, change bad!"

I could just as easily argue that supporters are only in favor of the change because the think "Change must = Good, right?"

The obvious solution would be to present both options and let gamers decide for themselves which to use. If they struggle with math, recommend the new system, and if they have Obsessive-Compulsive tendencies, recommend the old system.

I really don't see how rolling a 16 and counting by ten to 36 is a complicated math issue. It's about as basic as it gets.

Arguments about this changed mechanic not matching up to an old mechanic are basically boiling down to "no, change bad!"

I could just as easily argue that supporters are only in favor of the change because the think "Change must = Good, right?"

The obvious solution would be to present both options and let gamers decide for themselves which to use. If they struggle with math, recommend the new system, and if they have Obsessive-Compulsive tendencies, recommend the old system.

Keeping in mind that those OCD tendencies are likely only going to apply to a subset of those who played the original. And I can give two good reasons for this change: simpler math and increased viability to ALL characteristic bonuses.

Also, any time you have a change that is explicitly changing around the mechanics of the game, it's not the best idea to make it a choice for the fact that all future mechanics need to be tested both ways and be balanced both ways. If you create a rulebook that is full of choices for players, you should include sound reasoning for the defaults and descriptions of how the choices affect gameplay. Just having a list of houserules isn't a Core Rulebook.

I really don't see how rolling a 16 and counting by ten to 36 is a complicated math issue. It's about as basic as it gets.

Everyone I've played with has defaulted to subtracting, which is more difficult. And you chose an example in which there is an exact difference of 20, as opposed to something with a difference of 27 or of 14. In those cases, you end up juggling the number of tens in your head while also comparing whether the one's digits are bigger or smaller than one another. As opposed to just subtracting two single digit numbers and adding 1.

I really don't see how rolling a 16 and counting by ten to 36 is a complicated math issue. It's about as basic as it gets.

I have enough of always "keeping it simple". If we keep it even more simpler, we just roll 1d10 for ANY test and everyone has a value of 3; easy tests get +2, hard tests -2 --> perfect simple system.

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their rolls knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

I am also thinking of NPC stats.

WHat is the difference between a WS 30 and a WS39 guy - almost nothing now - ridiculous.

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their roles knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

The ones digit still applies to whether you succeed or not. That's why it's there. This is like asking why bother having characteristics be multiples of 10 if only the 10s digit matters for characteristic bonus.

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their roles knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

The ones digit still applies to whether you succeed or not. That's why it's there. This is like asking why bother having characteristics be multiples of 10 if only the 10s digit matters for characteristic bonus.

I see your point but this new rule is saying that if I need a 20 to succeed and roll a 19, the difference is 2 degrees? 1 degree for success and another for 1% difference all because we are using the tens digit?

Yes, because the new rule is basically saying that the only way to increase your degrees of success is by increasing the characteristic bonus of the roll.

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their roles knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

The ones digit still applies to whether you succeed or not. That's why it's there. This is like asking why bother having characteristics be multiples of 10 if only the 10s digit matters for characteristic bonus.

How does it?

Im sorry if this is rude (genuinely I am), but after reading this thread your only explained argument towards this proposal is you have an inability to do basic addition and subtraction like the rest of us. I'm not being facetious either, you literally just spent 2 paragraphs describing a problem I have never experienced at any point in my life with numbers.

I mean, just because something can be simplified, does it benefit from the simplification? In this case I would say no. I think the whole 'degrees of success' mechanic is getting a bit out of hand. When I used to run wfrp people used to ask me what was the point of having a toughness stat if they only used the bonus. My justification was always "You roll against the percentile for things like resisting disease". So essentially there were two mechanics at play for combat and non combat interactions (with some cross-over).

I couldn't justify this system to my players in a satisfactory way.

Edit: You took out your snarkiness, so I'm taking out mine. Hold for the rest of the edit.

You make a Willpower roll with a target number of 32. You roll a 38. That roll fails, because of the 1's digit. If you really want to break it down, you can consider the dice resolution in warhammer like this:

You have a target number with a 10s digit and a 1s digit.

1) You roll a d10 against the 10s digit, trying to equal it or get below it.

2)If 1) equals the 10s digit, you then check your 1s digit to see if it is equal to or below the target.

3)If 1) is less than the 10s digit, you don't need to check the 1s digit.

Now, taken in isolation from having degrees of success, this means that the second dice is only going to come into play 10% of the time (you have a 1 out of 10 chance of matching the 10s digit of the target number). Keep in mind, this system is entirely based on whether you succeed or not. So yes, even in the old system, the 1s digit only ever matters 10% of the time.

In the old system of Degrees of success, you would then subtract your roll from the target and for every 10 points of difference gain a degree of success, plus one more if playing OW or BC. In that system, 1s digit would matter 100% of the time for counting degrees of success , which are different from determining whether you succeed or not. The 10s digit also counts 100% of the time.

In the new system, the ones digit is not counted at all, and the 10s digit continues to be counted 100% of the time.

So, in actually looking at the math, it seems like the use of a one's digit has always been kind of vestigial and granular. Yes, the new degrees of success system makes the ones digit less important. However, in terms of just succeeding or not, the ones digit actually barely even matters, because it only needs to be checked 10% of the time. Maybe the game would be better off just eliminating it completely?

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their roles knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

The ones digit still applies to whether you succeed or not. That's why it's there. This is like asking why bother having characteristics be multiples of 10 if only the 10s digit matters for characteristic bonus.

How does it?

Im sorry if this is rude (genuinely I am), but after reading this thread your only explained argument towards this proposal is you have an inability to do basic addition and subtraction like the rest of us. I'm not being facetious either, you literally just spent 2 paragraphs describing a problem I have never experienced at any point in my life with numbers.

My fault. I was misinterpreting the rule.

Edit: You took out your snarkiness, so I'm taking out mine. Hold for the rest of the edit.

Its more that its 3am in the morning and I was trying to correct it to be more what I actually meant. Timezones and all that man.

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their rolls knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

I should perhaps point out that I was being sarcastic.

As it's been pointed out, why not just roll 1d10 then since that is all that will matter? It just seems utterly ridiculous to roll 2d10 for this process. I guess I could just house rule it but I think my players would feel better about their roles knowing that the ones digit can still help them.

The ones digit still applies to whether you succeed or not. That's why it's there. This is like asking why bother having characteristics be multiples of 10 if only the 10s digit matters for characteristic bonus.

How does it?

Im sorry if this is rude (genuinely I am), but after reading this thread your only explained argument towards this proposal is you have an inability to do basic addition and subtraction like the rest of us. I'm not being facetious either, you literally just spent 2 paragraphs describing a problem I have never experienced at any point in my life with numbers.

I mean, just because something can be simplified, does it benefit from the simplification? In this case I would say no. I think the whole 'degrees of success' mechanic is getting a bit out of hand. When I used to run wfrp people used to ask me what was the point of having a toughness stat if they only used the bonus. My justification was always "You roll against the percentile for things like resisting disease". So essentially there were two mechanics at play for combat and non combat interactions (with some cross-over).

I couldn't justify this system to my players in a satisfactory way.

Okay, you added your snark back and I'm not retyping mine, so I'll be brief. **** you, I do more actual number crunching and examining of mechanics than almost anyone else on this board. I understand how math works.

Guys, guys. Calm down (did "I" really just say that ?).

I think FFG just put the DoS-change in to distract us enough from other problems of the book.

After some weeks they put it back as it was in OW with no need to change anything else, and we will still be satisfied ;D

There was nothing "snarky" in my comment, it was an honest question. The way you explained it in your first post wasn't clear enough (if I was going to be "snarky" I would make a comment about how your ability with maths obviously doesn't equate to your talent with in the English language in order to explain it, but your last post would prove that wrong and I can actually follow your rationale much easier, even in a sleep deprived state. So thank you) You also used the pronoun "you" which made me instantly go "I've never done it like that...". In short I couldn't empathise with your problem.

Again, now I have read your expanded argument I can see what you're saying. I'm still not convinced its a better system, but I can follow why someone would.

I've never claimed to be a great writer (I also post on my phone a lot), but it does irk me to be told that I don't know how to do math. I spend a lot time bothering to write out actual number crunching in this forum.

I've also gamed with two engineers, a teacher, and a person with a biochemistry degree, and the games always grind to a halt when we calculate degrees of success. Your experience with calculating DoS may differ from mine, but the game phrases it as subtraction of two digit numbers in the original DH, which is objectively more difficult than subtraction of 1 digit numbers. How much more difficult is up to your group, I suppose.

That's fair, I have played with one guy who had to have everyone else tell him if he had succeeded or not, so point taken. Though I'm still not a proponent of this change.

Apologies again for coming off as rude, despite efforts to the contrary.

I guess to 95% of all groups, it is not that difficult to subtract 2 digit numbers.