I just absolutely cannot see how d100 vs d10 presents a major difference in probability of success. Say under the d100 system you have 44 Intelligence, and in the d10 system you have 4. That's a 40 percent chance of success vs a 44 percent chance of success. It's not such a drastic difference as to make it so that you're much more likely to fail. Not at all.

I think what feels true to the setting is a huge part of testing a game using an established IP from another company. The IP being the main selling point (and therefore most valuable part from a business perspective) of this game.

If the gameplay feels stale, its not as engaging. If an RPG isnt engaging its not enjoyable. That's pretty simple.

I think what feels true to the setting is a huge part of testing a game using an established IP from another company. The IP being the main selling point (and therefore most valuable part from a business perspective) of this game.

Please explain how a percentile resolution mechanic is integral to the Warhammer 40,000 fiction setting. Is 100 a sacred number to the Emperor? (I legit don't know, I'm not super up on my lore so please help me out here)

And how does d100 feel true to the IP at all? If we want to go down that route, clearly we should be moving to d6.

I think what feels true to the setting is a huge part of testing a game using an established IP from another company. The IP being the main selling point (and therefore most valuable part from a business perspective) of this game.

Please explain how a percentile resolution mechanic is integral to the Warhammer 40,000 fiction setting. Is 100 a sacred number to the Emperor? (I legit don't know, I'm not super up on my lore so please help me out here)

The word is 'legitimately'.

No, actually its 24 that's the Emperor's sacred number.

You've not explained how a decimal system is advantageous yet, so it seems to be a matter of preference. However you make the 'maths' argument for everything, whether its purely mechanical or not, so my comment was more general that specific to this discussion.

A d10 system's benefit has been explained, though; it strips away the totally vestigial factor of the ones digit on the d100 roll, which has such a miniscule effect that keeping it in is just bloating the system needlessly.

Stripping down numbers is always a good move if there's no negative system effect to doing so, in my opinion. It reduces the complexity of mathematics and makes things much easier to interpret quickly.

It reduces the complexity of the game world also.

I am absolutely against simplified systems.

Too complicated is also not good, but to simplify everything just leads to equalizing everything, and thats boring.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is pointless, though. The one digits may make character statlines look different, but they provide such a **** minuscule effect on the system that they might as well be stripped away.

Okay, if we roll back to a D10 system then how will I represent my slightly-stronger character (S35 with D100) in comparison of a character with an average strength (S30) and a character with very good strength (S40)? Like, my choices are limited to be as strong as anyone (S3) or as strong as an Ork (S4)? Where is my "S3.5" option?

The 40k tabletop already suffers from this super-silly simplification issue that leaves no place for middle-grounds and slaughters diversity. Yeah, maybe S35 isn't that big of a difference from S30 but it is still a difference that makes my character original from both the 30 and 40 crowd.

Talents and traits have always done way more to diversify characters than their stats. That wouldn't change under a d10 system.

Talents and traits have always done way more to diversify characters than their stats. That wouldn't change under a d10 system.

A character with 36, compared to one with 30 has 20% more points than the other. I DO call this a difference that counts.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is pointless, though. The one digits may make character statlines look different, but they provide such a **** minuscule effect on the system that they might as well be stripped away.

It's not complexity for complexities sake (I really really cant hear this sentence anymore); its complexity for MY sake. And for those players sake who like a certain complexity more than mindless simplification.

The stereotype nerd is quite clever - so why are role players even complaining about complexity ? ;D

Why not just use a d6 with 3 times "Yes" and 3 times "No" ? Who needs anything else ? /sarcasm off

I'm honestly not interested in arguments of " I like it this way!"

If you can't provide something backed by logic and maths for why you think the complexity contributes well to the system, I don't see why you're in this discussion.

You might call simplifying things 'mindless', but by the same hyperbole, I can say that if you're so interested in needlessly large numbers, why not just add a zero to the end of every characteristic and make the system 1d1000?

Oh yeah, because smaller numbers are inherently much easier to work with.

Also, the math above is... kinda useless. Sure, you're right. But on the same hand, a character with 2 in a characteristic compared to a 1 in a characteristic has 100 percent more points than the other. So what?

So what ? His chances are double as high. Thats the effect.

Exaggeration with 1d1000 is needless.

And of course "I like it" is a valid reason enough, even if I dont put up endless texts and mathematical formula behind it.

Its a level of complexity and detail that I like and I prefer to simplified systems, that are not that detailed.

In my eyes, a d10 does not at all reflect the necessary detail, and a d1000 would be way too much detail.

No "maths" in the world can give you any objectivity on that.

Indeed, "maths" is another word I cant hear anymore in this forums.

If a man with 39 is treated like a man with 30 if it comes to DoS, I dont need "maths" to find out that this is...how do I put this polite..."not really reasonable".

And you'd be surprised...but my main concern is not really what arguments you are interested in.

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.

How are the emphasised elements even different? You seem to be contradicting yourself within the same post .

The thing is, sure, the statlines LOOK different. I'm not arguing that. But that ones digit? It comes into play ten percent of the time on a characteristic test. And never anywhere else in the system. Virtually nothing else in the game even considers the ones digit relevant; it's all about +10 modifiers and characteristic bonuses.

So sure, you're differentiating how the statlines LOOK, but not really how they function.

Talents and traits have always done way more to diversify characters than their stats. That wouldn't change under a d10 system.

A character with 36, compared to one with 30 has 20% more points than the other. I DO call this a difference that counts.

But that's sort of the original point, he doesn't effectively have those 20% better stats.

Those 6 points are only relevant in 10% of actual rolls (the ones where the 10's dice shows a 3). In all other cases, there is no difference between scores of 36 and 30, which was the whole point of originally (and sarcastically) commenting that we might as well move to a d10 system.

Every skill test is also concerned, not only every characteristic roll.

The bonus values are in +5 or +10 steps, but not the roll and the compared char value + skill bonus.

Talents and traits have always done way more to diversify characters than their stats. That wouldn't change under a d10 system.

A character with 36, compared to one with 30 has 20% more points than the other. I DO call this a difference that counts.

But that's sort of the original point, he doesn't effectively have those 20% better stats.

Those 6 points are only relevant in 10% of actual rolls (the ones where the 10's dice shows a 3). In all other cases, there is no difference between scores of 36 and 30, which was the whole point of originally (and sarcastically) commenting that we might as well move to a d10 system.

I didnt read out any sarcasm at the 1d10 proposal.

Yes, as soon as you add boni/mali to the mix, the 20% difference gets smaller (or bigger!).

But still, on blank %, 6% more or less is something that matters ! It is a whole char increase !

Characteristics are definitely done in +5 increases. But in terms of modifiers? You have to look pretty hard to find any +5 modifiers. Modifiers less than +5 are borderline non-existent.

As for characteristic advances, it's a simple matter of halving the amount you can take, but doubling their costs.

And yeah, my bad on the characteristics roll thing, I definitely meant skill rolls too. Should have just said tests.

I didnt read out any sarcasm at the 1d10 proposal.

So, let's change to rolling a d10 then. Why waste attention?

You will notice that I was the one to originally suggest the d10, and I assure you I was being sarcastic.

*theatrical sigh*

Most of the good arguments in this thread were made on page 1, why are we on page 5 by now?

Because righteous fury and relentless rage took our very hearts.

More likely because FFG's updates to the system are so minor and milquetoast that we don't have a lot to discuss.

Edit: That and after so many years, people are getting more and more aware that 40kRPG is just pretty poorly designed and generally held together with duct tape.

Yeah - the thing I am pissed of most is this lame beta2 with the minor changes. Its a shame.

If Update4 does not bring some REAL changes, there wont come any relevant changes after that for sure.

In the meantime I think the only reason why they make this "beta" is to use us for finding spelling mistakes.

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.

Excuse me for being dense, but just how does this work out for you?

How are the emphasised elements even different? You seem to be contradicting yourself within the same post .

My note to Tom Cruise was sarcasm. I would hope that referring to changing the mathematical basis of the game in such non-mathematical hyperbole and likening simplification of mathematical operations to a 50/50 method of resolution would have been sufficiently ridiculous as to read as a joke, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think that says a lot about what kind of arguments you expect to read on these forums. And that's not a slight to you. I think it's a pretty good illustration of the low level of discourse usually read here. Lowered expectations.

Oh and Cail, 'legit' is a conversational shortening of 'legitimate(ly)'. It's even in the dictionary.