What breaks the d100?

Hello all! I am currently heading the development of a tabletop RPG in it's early stages, and as we set the tone and mechanics we have been leaning closer and closer to a d% system. I've heard a lot of people express general dislike for d% gaming systems, but this rarely comes with a clear reason. I was wondering if any of you had specific problems we could avoid (or things that work well and that we should aim for), so that we can avoid major pitfalls and make sure the system is fun for as many people as possible. Thanks in advance for your feedback!

Math. Lots of math during gameplay. That breaks the d100. This is not as much of a problem if you can automate that part of it in a vtt.

HoneyBadger said: Math. Lots of math during gameplay. That breaks the d100. This is not as much of a problem if you can automate that part of it in a vtt. I have to ask what you ment by that? After playing WFRP 2nd edition for about 2 years I would say that the only problem I have with the system is the extremely low chance to succeed in anything at lower "levels". Eg combat takes forever.

If there's a lot of math during actual gameplay, the d100 can be cumbersome. If all the math is handled outside of gameplay, it's not so bad.

Math?  Not saying that isn't what some people may believe about D100. I never found this a problem. D100 systems are generally skill-check based and most don't use 'levels' for character progression. I think that people who are used to 'levelling up' find this aspect difficult to swallow. I prefer skills which advance as you use them rather than because they are part of a 'class' In terms of Roll20, D100 is more straightforward to automate than most systems. No full 3D dice simulation for the dice yet but not everybody can use that anyway.

LochaberAxe said: In terms of Roll20, D100 is more straightforward to automate than most systems. No full 3D dice simulation for the dice yet but not everybody can use that anyway. I agree with you on that aspect and a % mechanic is not that hard work with on the fly. I've done it many times in old systems. If the original poster would be kind enough to explain his system a little bit more then we could give him a better answer.

LochaberAxe said: D100 systems are generally skill-check based and most don't use 'levels' for character progression. I think that people who are used to 'levelling up' find this aspect difficult to swallow. I prefer skills which advance as you use them rather than because they are part of a 'class' Which incidentally can become a big problem if you DO put in an advancement system. I think that's one of the problems of FFGs WH40k RPG line. Advancement and stacking modifiers can quickly get out of hand. Generally my experience was that it's nigh impossible for a non specialised character to get semi-difficult tasks done, while at the same time such a character has a good chance to succeed at routine tasks, while specialists may still fail at something they do every day. Very unintuitive, very very hard to balance. If you want a numbers example just ask. I prefer a dicepool system where both the pool and the threshold are adjustable.

The idea would be to put virtually everything (stats, skills, hit chance, etc.) on a percentile. In order to avoid the problem of low levels having no chance to do anything, we were thinking we would have stats start around 50% with adjustments in either direction based on race (races filling the standard role of classes, where the bulk of a character's abilities stem from what race they are). Skills and such would start based off of a specific stat (not unlike proficiencies in AD&D 2E) and gain modifiers as additional ranks are purchased. Finally, hit chance would be based first on the weapon and then modified by stats and skill level, while there would be several reactionary defense options to balance the high hit chances at greater levels.

Well, a d100 does seem like it would complicate things.  if there are only four results, (say a fumble for 1-24, a fail on 26-50, a success on 51-75, and a crit on 75-100), why not roll a d4? D100s are good for things with lots of possible outcomes, and some table-based results, and it's good for certain types of precision (eg, the amount on a d100 rolled over is added to a success pool, and when the success pool totals 200, the encounter is over), but if it's just large ranges of numbers hoping to beat a specific result, it's easier to use something with less sides, i think. But, this is roll20, you don't need to actually have the dice of the sides you want to roll.  I can roll a d17 if i choose.  Why not use percentages when they're appropriate for the level of detail you want, and something else when it's appropriate? in fact, i don't think i've ever seen an RPG designed for a computerized dice roller and online play audience.  That really seems like something that could exist.

The idea would be to put virtually everything (stats, skills, hit chance, etc.) on a percentile. In order to avoid the problem of low levels having no chance to do anything, we were thinking we would have stats start around 50% with adjustments in either direction based on race (races filling the standard role of classes, where the bulk of a character's abilities stem from what race they are). Skills and such would start based off of a specific stat (not unlike proficiencies in AD&D 2E) and gain modifiers as additional ranks are purchased. Finally, hit chance would be based first on the weapon and then modified by stats and skill level, while there would be several reactionary defense options to balance the high hit chances at greater levels. A lot of D100 systems have the option of assigning 'skill points' to various skills at char gen (subject to maxima etc) rather than a fixed class/race system. Your approach will work. It's just about what you prefer.  Some systems also provide modifiers for general situations e.g. ( easy task x2, difficult task /2 ) which mean that even a green character can lace his boots and even a hero can miss when the dragon is trying to fry him. What I prefer about these systems is you generally 'tick' the ones you succeed at and advance those by a few % each time the GM says (generally between adventures or every few sessions).  Why should e.g.a 'rogue' who scouts but doesn't steal get increases to 'pick pocket' skill every 'level'? Min-maxers will avoid using skills that they have low chance of success until they get to a 'level' which gives them a high chance. If  they have to use them to improve them they will. [my point-of-view, you may disagree] 

I think it's all a matter of perception. D20 systems are nothing but D% systems in 5% increments. I guess it really just comes down to the level of precision you want in your pass/fail schema.

Well, if you're playing something like Dark Heresy it makes perfect sense. If you were playing something more like BattleTech, that's gonna be hard.

I have been toying around with this idea for a couple years now.  And the first part is a good hack for Warhammer/Dark Heresy. Core Mechanic.  Roll d100+ability/skill  a result of 101 or higher is a success.  This makes contested rolls much easier than rolling under. I like to have every 20 or 25 over be an extra success.   Doubles, if you roll doubles then you pick up the dice and roll again, adding the second roll to the first, this is open ended.  This allows for rare but fun high results.  Rolling doubles and then not succeeding is considered a fumble. Example a Max with a melee skill of 53 rolls a 22, he picks up the dice and rolls again getting a 41 that adds up to 116 so he hits, but with just a normal success since it is not higher than a 125. Max swings again getting a 33 on his first roll he picks up the dice again and rolls a 7 so now his total is 93 he fails and because he rolled doubles it is a fumble.

Nico H. said: I think that's one of the problems of FFGs WH40k RPG line. The biggest problem in Dark Heresy, IMO, is probably the rules for automatic fire weapons. My Scum picked up a full-auto weapon, pointed it at a Warp demon "boss," and wasted it in two turns. The characters that were actually designed to be combat spec couldn't even hit the thing. The later games fixed the issue, but they came with their own new problems. (Personally, I don't think it's right that a starting character -- even if he is a Space Marine -- should be able to go 1v1 against a Hive Tyrant. And have a reasonable chance to win.) LochaberAxe said: D100 systems are generally skill-check based and most don't use 'levels' for character progression. I think that people who are used to 'levelling up' find this aspect difficult to swallow. I prefer skills which advance as you use them rather than because they are part of a 'class' One of the players in my regular group dislikes d% because of the hard limit on his potential. Honestly, I think it's silly -- he has never in his life played a single campaign long enough to get the amount of xp required to make a d% system's given cap meaningful. On the latter point about improving skills as you use them, the first thing that comes to mind is a variant of Unknown Armies, "Unknown Ponies: Failure is Awesome." While the setting isn't everyone's cup of tea ( My Little Pony ), it does have one mechanic I find particularly interesting: if you fail a skill roll, you immediately gain +1 in that skill, permanently -- and that's the only way to increase your skills. Thus, the player still gets some reward when they fail, and "leveling up" becomes more difficult as you progress (since it becomes harder to fail on skill rolls the higher the skill). Speaking of Unknown Armies, that system has been my favorite d% system I've found. The "One Roll Engine" makes most encounters pretty darn fast. With a small number of exceptions, your turn in combat consists entirely of "roll d%" plus flavor. My regular group has done a lot of Exalted, which often has very long combats. I ran a one-shot (that became two sessions due to timing) of UA, and it felt like the two combat encounters we had flew by blindingly fast. I also used the "car chase" rules to simulate a foot chase, and that took some extended time, but that was entirely my fault. (The players should have won the chase and ended it much sooner, but it was important to the story that they not actually meet their quarry until the end, so I fudged some rolls.)

Brian said: The biggest problem in Dark Heresy, IMO, is probably the rules for automatic fire weapons. My Scum picked up a full-auto weapon, pointed it at a Warp demon "boss," and wasted it in two turns. The characters that were actually designed to be combat spec couldn't even hit the thing. Almost all starting characters (mundane humans, not strength-focused) have a greater than neglegible chance at defeating an average Space Marine in Power Armour... at armwrestling . It may only be a 10 to 15% chance, but it should virtually never happen. And certainly not one out of five times. That problem persists through all systems. Balancing the range and weight of characters' inherent abilities, tools and situational modifiers (see full auto) against each other is very difficult. They may be fine individually (like Black Crusade's +10 in short range), but excessive in tandem (+red dot, + accurate, + aim, +single shot). They may also be very underwhelming individually, like getting a mere +10 for having tools when you want to repair a machine, something rather difficult to do with your bare hands in most cases. Mechanics either reflect the world the characters live in or provide a random, somewhat weighted answer to a question (failure vs success) that currently halts the narrative, I think. These two options are extremes on a scale, rather than binary options, but if you want to push the d100 system towards simulating a world, a lot of effort will have to go into balancing and design. But your expectations of the system may differ, after all. Realism may help immersion, but it's arguably not inherently fun. Failure is Awesome sounds like a great game to play, especially if/because it leaves realism at the doorstep.

Some of my favourite games were d% and came from Chaosium (RuneQuest, Ringworld, Call of Cthulhu, AND the rules-system was licensed to OTHER SUNS by Fantasy Games Unlimited) and the generic foundation is Basic RolePlaying , which is now an extensive 500-page book with "fingers" into each of the genres Chaosium previously covered. It is also available in a Quick-Start edition for cheaper. <a href="http://catalog.chaosium.com/index.php?cPath=37" rel="nofollow">http://catalog.chaosium.com/index.php?cPath=37</a> The system proposes some basic 3d6-based characteristics but then a large list of skills. &nbsp;For some skills you definitely need specialized education, such as the sciences, so any unskilled character has a base percentage of only 0% or 1%. &nbsp;If it is a skill that is more intuitive and can be done somewhat by even an unskilled character, they give the skill a bigger "floor" like 10% or 20%. &nbsp;In some games, having high characteristics gives you a bonus to base% for some skills. &nbsp;Characters develop their skills by checking a box that they have used the skill in the current campaign, but they only get an increase if they can learn something new. &nbsp;That is achieved by having to roll OVER your current skill-level, which gets harder and harder. &nbsp;If you succeed, get 1d6 more percent in the skill. &nbsp;This is a good advancement system. Percentages above 100% are possible. &nbsp;This must be in conjunction with a critical hit system: &nbsp;rolling 1/20th of the roll you needed or less is a Critical Success, rolling 1/5th of the roll you needed or less is a Special Success, and rolling in the top 1/20th of the range of percentages which are failed rolls is a Critical Failure aka a Fumble. &nbsp;Having skill-levels over 100% will mean you can basically always succeed at normal tasks, except you can still fail or fumble, but give you more beneficial Criticals and Specials more often. RuneQuest had an extensive table of Fumbles, based on what the Society for Creative Anachronism experiences: &nbsp;armor-straps break, swords slip. &nbsp;The "Murphy's Rules" column of SPACE GAMER joked that, if you applied the rules exactingly, out of a large army of 20,000, every round of a pitched battle something like 5 soldiers would disembowel themselves and 2 would cut their own heads off! My MOST favourite system is&nbsp; STAR FRONTIERS: Alpha Dawn (1982, TSR). &nbsp;It had a very restricted set of only 13 skills in the basic game, but many sub-skills within each skill, with a base% chance + 10% added per Level in a skill (in the basic game, skills were Level 1-6). &nbsp;In that way, with different base% chances, easy and more difficult sub-skills within a skill (like computer programming vs. difficult hacking) would be defined and give different percentage chances for the same level of the skill. &nbsp;Trying to use alien weaponry or tech was -20% though! &nbsp;In an age where now all kinds of esoteric RPG dice-rolls are used, I still consider this the best for fast-and-furious combat rolls for melee, ranged, vehicle and aerial vehicle combat all in the same six-second-turn framework. &nbsp;But since it was still d%, you always had a feel for what your chances were and could switch approaches if you felt your character's chances were too low. You can download the current, fan-edited edition here for FREE (and tons more stuff like the expansion sets, many of the old adventure modules, and a colourful fan magazine), or buy the hardcopy versions at print-cost from lulu.com . &nbsp;The fans originally secured a deal with TSR that this stuff would be available as long as no one makes a profit from it. &nbsp;Originally this game was meant to be mass-marketed and sold in far-flung bookstores, and land with suburban teens who might never have heard of RPGs or been in a group, so they explained running RPGs and designing adventures VERY well. RUN, don't walk over and download it. <a href="http://www.starfrontiersman.com/downloads/remastered" rel="nofollow">http://www.starfrontiersman.com/downloads/remastered</a>

Nico H. said: Failure is Awesome sounds like a great game to play, especially if/because it leaves realism at the doorstep. I haven't actually had the opportunity to play, unfortunately (though I did GM Unknown Armies, the system it's based on, and I'm working on developing an UP story for a Roll20 campaign). The game was designed to play "blank flanks" -- children who have not yet earned their Cutie Mark by discovering their special talent. To quote the author in her blog (WRT figuring out the meaning of the game's title, which began as a simple pun): Failure results in learning. Learning is growth. Growth is awesome. Therefore, failure is awesome (eventually). And to quote the book: Good judgement is the result of experience; however, experience is usually gained as a result of bad judgement.

Brian said:&nbsp; On the latter point about improving skills as you use them, the first thing that comes to mind is a variant of Unknown Armies, "Unknown Ponies: Failure is Awesome." While the setting isn't everyone's cup of tea ( My Little Pony ), it does have one mechanic I find particularly interesting: if you fail a skill roll, you immediately gain +1 in that skill, permanently -- and that's the only way to increase your skills. Thus, the player still gets some reward when they fail, and "leveling up" becomes more difficult as you progress (since it becomes harder to fail on skill rolls the higher the skill). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Some D% systems check-mark skills used successfully. Raising the skill needs a separate roll &gt; skill rating so it gets harder as you advance. Usually you get a small increase typically 1D6 per 'adventure'. &nbsp; I quite like the idea of learning from failure and several +1s might quickly add up. Perhaps you could&nbsp;explain more about how advancement works in the system. Is there a limit to&nbsp; how many times you can advance per adventure in Failure is Awesome. I don't think the setting is for me but the idea of learning by mistakes has a lot of appeal..

LochaberAxe said: I quite like the idea of learning from failure and several +1s might quickly add up. Perhaps you could&nbsp;explain more about how advancement works in the system. Is there a limit to&nbsp;how many times you can advance per adventure in Failure is Awesome. I don't think the setting is for me but the idea of learning by mistakes has a lot of appeal.. I'd have to double check to be certain, but IIRC you can only +1 a given skill either once per scene or once per session (I forget). Skills are capped by their associated attributes. The attributes are advanced by spending Magic points (which also have other uses); earning Magic points requires spending 5 points from Laughter/Kindness/Honesty/Loyalty/Generosity in any combination (which, again, also have other uses), and those are awarded by the GM for both in-character and out-of-character actions. The only other portion of the character that changes and has mechanical impact on the game is the character's Obsession Skill, and that does not change once selected (and if you play an adult at chargen, you start with it). Under-age characters earn their OS when they first reach 40 in a skill.