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.

[...]

Give these people a calculator. I find it offensive that stupid people are even in the gene pool; now they must contaminate my games, too? Gah.

People with an IQ below 90 shouldn't be allowed to breed.

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.

[...]

Give these people a calculator. I find it offensive that stupid people are even in the gene pool; now they must contaminate my games, too? Gah.

People with an IQ below 90 shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Ohm...that smells like...sarcasm...I hope ;D

But I get the point.

There is a reason calculators exist. If 5% of humankind cannot do this simple math, they still may participate with the omnissiahs blessed instrument at hand !

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.

[...]

Give these people a calculator. I find it offensive that stupid people are even in the gene pool; now they must contaminate my games, too? Gah.

People with an IQ below 90 shouldn't be allowed to breed.

I am saddened that a literal eugenicist is contaminating the player-base. Take your awful fascist ideas elsewhere, dude.

P.S. As someone actually qualified to administer and interpret IQ tests, I will let you know that basing breeding off of them is incredibly stupid both from a practical standpoint and from the standpoint of the slightest understanding of how evolution works.

C'mon - lets stop that and get back to the topic, before things get worse.

There's Only War enough these days.

BACK ON TOPIC

Back on topic, then:

Given that for actually determining success, the one's digit only matters 10% of the time, is it actually even a good idea to include it in the first place?

Degrees of success is a mechanic that has been tacked onto the d100 system, and although it uses the 1's digit, it also can be made to only use the 10's digit. In addition, the Characteristic Bonus system is not used for the 1's digit, and almost every modifier in the game makes no use of it. So...should it even exist?

My problem is, if looking at tests, where DoS actually matter (like auto-fire), the new rule definitely flattens out the relevant characteristics on their first digit.

Therefore it feels like taking unique features of PCs and NPCs away.

Its not the 31 BS scum VS the 39 Arbites anymore. Its the 3 VS 3 that feels boring and wrong.

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.

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.

With regard to that first point, it's not about staying true to the previous editions, it's about common-sense interpretation of the dice roll result. The new system will irritate many people who never played the earlier version.

I will grant you that having alternative systems might open up problems down the road.

As for the last part, it boggles my mind that anyone would choose to subtract in the old system. Why not just count increments of 10 ( inclusive , in the new system which counts 'passing' as a DoS, which I agree is an improvement). Your Characteristic is 47 and you roll a 19 so, let's see, "19, 29, 39- I'm just shy of 4 Degrees!" Maybe I'm weird, but I find that incredibly simple.

Good grief. Is it the recent full moon or something? First the IKRPG board and now here. The world does NOT need another /tg/, folks; can we try to keep a bit more civil and productive?

To the topic at hand, at what point in the 'game lineage' was this change made? Did OW use a full subtraction of both digits?

Does civil discourse involve not calling people out on advocating literal eugenics? What exactly do you take issue with?

Every game has used full subtraction. At some point they changed it so that DoS start at 1 instead of 0. Only in DH2 do you only look at the 10s digit only.

I find it kind of ridiculous that people think using a calculator is an acceptable solution to people having a hard time with the math and the smugness of inferring people who don't like the system where you're constantly subtracting two two digit numbers must be less intelligent.

Nimsim has illustrated pretty coherently why the new system is simpler and better and nobody has put anything forward to counter it that isn't "I'm smarter than you and can do math" or "The old way is better for reasons ." Subtracting two 1 digit numbers is objectively less complicated than subtracting two 2 digit numbers and nobody has said why the old ways should be kept. In my opinion the game benefits from this simplification.

I can't even remember. We switched to "Simple DoS" and never looked back...until I altered it a wee bit.

Add +1 to the tens digit if the Test is successful to calculate the total DoS.

Subtract the tens digit from 10 if the Test fails to calculate the total DoF.

TNs cannot be increased above 100, and PCs have Characteristic caps of 55.

Ten DoS, Ten DoF.

Does civil discourse involve not calling people out on advocating literal eugenics? What exactly do you take issue with?

Every game has used full subtraction. At some point they changed it so that DoS start at 1 instead of 0. Only in DH2 do you only look at the 10s digit only.

I find it kind of ridiculous that people think using a calculator is an acceptable solution to people having a hard time with the math and the smugness of inferring people who don't like the system where you're constantly subtracting two two digit numbers must be less intelligent.

Nimsim has illustrated pretty coherently why the new system is simpler and better and nobody has put anything forward to counter it that isn't "I'm smarter than you and can do math" or "The old way is better for reasons ." Subtracting two 1 digit numbers is objectively less complicated than subtracting two 2 digit numbers and nobody has said why the old ways should be kept. In my opinion the game benefits from this simplification.

I am willing to accept the argument that the new system decreases the importance of the 1's digit, although it DOES NOT completely negate its importance. However, the 1's digit is, as I said, only used 10% of the time in success confirmation, while the old DoS rules used it 100% of the time (and it is now used 0% of the time for DoS). So yes, the one's digit is less important now, although I think an argument exists that it was never all that important to begin with. Taking out its use in DoS does beg the question of whether it should exist at all, given how rarely it actually is used, now.

I can't even remember. We switched to "Simple DoS" and never looked back...until I altered it a wee bit.

Add +1 to the tens digit if the Test is successful to calculate the total DoS.

Subtract the tens digit from 10 if the Test fails to calculate the total DoF.

TNs cannot be increased above 100, and PCs have Characteristic caps of 55.

Ten DoS, Ten DoF.

I am having a hard time parsing what you're saying, here. Here's what I'm getting from it:

1) Rather than telling players to get 1 DoS automatically for succeeding, you tell them to add one to the 10s digit of their target number then find the difference between that and their roll

2)Rather than telling players to get 1 DoF automatically for succeeding, you tell them to subtract one from the 10s digit of their target number then find the difference between that and their roll

3)Target Numbers can never exceed 100. This I don't get. RAW, a natural 100 always fails anyway and a when shooting something a roll from 92-100 (depending on fire rate) is an automatic fail. So, there's no reason to raise a Target Number above 100 anyway. Also, the die physically can't roll over 100, so if the TN is 105, the player isn't going to find a way to roll 106.

4)PCs have characteristic caps of 55. What are you basing this on? Is it just kind of intuited? As Radwraith said, this is a game of modifiers, so have you taken those into account?

5)10 DoS, 10 DoF. Where are you getting those from? Those are the maximums if you limit TN to 100, but I thought that the newest beta already reverted to that.

To the topic at hand, at what point in the 'game lineage' was this change made? Did OW use a full subtraction of both digits?

Dark Heresy one used the mechanic, albeit relatively sparingly under the BI rule system. The FFG supplements and follow on systems have used it much more liberally.

I'd actually be all for cutting the ones digit from the system entirely and making it a d10 game. I can't see any drastic loss in game quality this would cause.

I can't even remember. We switched to "Simple DoS" and never looked back...until I altered it a wee bit.

Add +1 to the tens digit if the Test is successful to calculate the total DoS.

Subtract the tens digit from 10 if the Test fails to calculate the total DoF.

TNs cannot be increased above 100, and PCs have Characteristic caps of 55.

Ten DoS, Ten DoF.

I am having a hard time parsing what you're saying, here. Here's what I'm getting from it:

1) Rather than telling players to get 1 DoS automatically for succeeding, you tell them to add one to the 10s digit of their target number then find the difference between that and their roll

2)Rather than telling players to get 1 DoF automatically for succeeding, you tell them to subtract one from the 10s digit of their target number then find the difference between that and their roll

3)Target Numbers can never exceed 100. This I don't get. RAW, a natural 100 always fails anyway and a when shooting something a roll from 92-100 (depending on fire rate) is an automatic fail. So, there's no reason to raise a Target Number above 100 anyway. Also, the die physically can't roll over 100, so if the TN is 105, the player isn't going to find a way to roll 106.

4)PCs have characteristic caps of 55. What are you basing this on? Is it just kind of intuited? As Radwraith said, this is a game of modifiers, so have you taken those into account?

5)10 DoS, 10 DoF. Where are you getting those from? Those are the maximums if you limit TN to 100, but I thought that the newest beta already reverted to that.

1 If a Test is successful, meaning =/< the TN, add 1 to the tens Digit. The result is your DoS. Ex: TN 34, d% result of 04 is 1DoS.

2 If the Test fails, meaning > than TN, subtract tens digit from 10. The result is your DoF. Ex: TN 34, d% result of 78, 3 DoF.

3 I fully understand TNs cannot go above 100. But if modifiers result in a TN > 100 you get proportionately more DoS than DoF, and this doesn't seem right- this is taking into consideration the original DH convention .

4 The Charactersistic caps are intuited, yes. House Rules for Chargen and Advances, so you may ignore. And yes, modifiers (both + and -) are taken into account.

5 There is an even spread of 10 DoS/DoF with my tweak. The new Beta may do just that, but I've been doing this much, much longer than it has existed. It is a sort of bell curve- If the TN is 34, a d% result =/< 34 is 4 DoS, while 35-39 is 7 DoF, 40-49 is 6 DoF, and so on. The closer the d% result is to the TN without going over is "better" and takes some of the focus away from Characteristic Bonuses being benchmarks.

The issue isn't just what's more mathematically sound though, its about what feels right. Reducing the game to effectively being D10 rolls feels stale. Some games are diceless, some use cards. A resolution system for any game is as much about flavour as maths. Even if its just as mechanically sound, the game feeling wrong can lessen the enjoyment, and we can all agree we play the game to enjoy it.

I'd say keeping it as a percentile system feels far too granular and cumbersome, when there's no substantial gain from it mechanically. Cutting away numeric bloat is a good thing, I think.

We could just flip a coin? That's simple and doesn't involve any numbers or math...

What substantial benefit does the system gain from the extra granularity added by the ones digit? As it stands, I don't see any reason to keep it there. It doesn't do anything.

I'll tell you why I would like to keep the ones digit.

I have possibly the most abysmal luck with dice. Anything but a one, always roll the one. Always. If I had a PC with 3s and 4s in all my starting Characteristics, I would rarely ever succeed in anything. I'd be more inclined to quit playing this game, just as I've quit TT40K. This is not a "winning" issue, this is a "fun" issue. If rolling dice means success or failure, and I rarely succeed, then I'm not going to have fun. You know how people complain about failing Influence rolls citing that some PCs will never get any stuff as their main concern? I'm the guy whose PC would never get any stuff if it were a d10 vs d%. And I like the Influence mech.

I understand the "rule" regarding only rolling when something interesting is to come of doing so. I understand that a failed dice roll doesn't necessarily mean a complete failure at a task.

I've played Scion. I hate their d10 mechanic. I rolled so many botches. The GM decided I could just RP everything else for the remainder of the night and put away my dice since nothing seemed to be going my way. I appreciated the gesture, but by the time I was fed up I was also no longer in the mood to play. It also felt wrong to get an open license from the GM that the other players didn't get, and it stuck in my craw because I played the Amber diceless system many years ago, and it was complete shite.

The benefit I get from having the ones digit is hard to quantify, except to say that I'm just as likely to roll a success as I am to roll a failure, and that's one important component to my understanding of fun, whereas if the game moved to a d10 (based upon my personal experience) I'd never play it, nor would I make anyone else play it.

That... doesn't make a ton of sense, honestly. The difference in probability for success in the current d100 system vs a similar system done with d10 is so utterly miniscule that I can't see any reasonable argument for it changing the odds.

Your post honestly just reeks of "I hate it for reasons!"

But they none the less are reasons. They are my reasons. You may not agree with my reasons, but they still are my reasons. You may not think my reasons make any sense, and that's fine. I ask only that you run a lengthy campaign where all d% are rolled as d10, adjust modifiers to single digits, and let us know how that fares. But in my experience, rolling a single die to determine success/failure is a bad idea. You may as well flip a coin.

Ah yes, the nebulous "Feels Right" game mechanic. Math backing the system be damned. It could be the most mechanically sound, balanced system in the world, but if does feel right (read: work the same way I'm familiar with it working) it is a bad system.

I like that in your mind rolling a d10 and comparing it to a target number is equivalent (mathematically? thematically?) to flipping a coin. Makes a lot of sense.

cps,

In the kindest of ways I can manage, and for others on the this forum to which you've commented for no other reason than to remind them that spell checking is the single most important part of their contributions to this forum, take your smug, smarmy, judgmental, belittling, internet policing attitude and f u c k off.

That... doesn't make a ton of sense, honestly. The difference in probability for success in the current d100 system vs a similar system done with d10 is so utterly miniscule that I can't see any reasonable argument for it changing the odds.

Your post honestly just reeks of "I hate it for reasons!"

To be honest this entire thread is starting to reek of skub.

cps,

In the kindest of ways I can manage, and for others on the this forum to which you've commented for no other reason than to remind them that spell checking is the single most important part of their contributions to this forum, take your smug, smarmy, judgmental, belittling, internet policing attitude and f u c k off.

I get really tired of people on this forum either not discussing the hard mechanics of the game or countering cogent mathematical criticisms of the system with weak, nebulous statements about how things don't feel right.

The entire point of this forum is to analyze the DH2 beta system. "This change doesn't feel right" is not analysis. It's useless, whining noise that is completely unhelpful in any real sense.

\/\/\/ but Tom Cruise without that ones digit the game is a flavorless mess. I'd feel like I might as well just flip a coin without double digit subtraction.