Was it really so hard?

[Matthew]

Breakdaddy wrote:
Galadrin, explain to me how I only use a 1-20 on roll over and have as much freedom with roll under on a d20. If I roll a 37 with modifiers on a d20 then that is a far greater degree of separation than if I roll a 2 on a d20. You cant possibly give me a target 30 and roll under on a d20 (well you could, but why?) where on a roll over its very feasible to roll a 30 and have someone try to roll over that 30 to beat the target. This doesnt seem like the "fallacy" you are claiming that it is, so explain please.

It is all modifiers. You just have to think about it in reverse. If you have a target number of 30 and a +10 to your roll, it's functionally the same as needing to roll under 11 with +10 to your roll. In one case you need 20, and in the other you need 1. In both cases you have a 5% chance of success.

The key difference is that when using an Attribute check positive modifiers to the die roll make tasks harder, whilst negative modifiers make them easier.

Breakdaddy wrote:
Dude. Because you cared enough to lay that big pile of numerals on me I will donate a handsome sum of awesome to you. DONATION ENSUES...

PS- I am normally pretty thrifty with my "awesome reserves" so you have been bestowed a high honour (enough of one that I spelled honor all royally).

No problem, thanks for the awesome.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[DangerDwarf]

Breakdaddy wrote:
If I roll a 37 with modifiers on a d20

If you rolled a 37 with modifiers on a d20 at my table I'd beam you in the nads with a d30.

Belee dat!

[DangerDwarf]

Matthew wrote:
Take a character with a 12 in an non prime attribute. Wish I could do tables here, let's see:

AS: 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

AC: 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 | 85 | 90

NC: 00 | 05 | 05 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 30

PC: 30 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 55 | 55 | 60

AS = Attribute Score

AC = Attribute Check

NC = Non Prime SIEGE check

PC = Prime SIEGE check

The above are the comparative probability distributions of a successful unmodified check for each of the three methods under discussion at the various attribute scores. None of the above promotes realism or versimilitude in any way. theya re just probability distributions. How you then choose to modify them determines the probability that you use.

I soooo want to understand what you just said. I'm number-tarded though.
You folks that can figure stuff like that out make me jealous.

[Orpheus]

Breakdaddy wrote:
Dude. Because you cared enough to lay that big pile of numerals on me I will donate a handsome sum of awesome to you. DONATION ENSUES...

PS- I am normally pretty thrifty with my "awesome reserves" so you have been bestowed a high honour (enough of one that I spelled honor all royally).

You should probably be even thriftier with your "awesome" at the moment, what with the current "awesome crunch" that the markets are experiencing. If I were you I would remove my awesome from equities and build a portfolio based around awesome bonds and awesome commodities. While not high growth, your awesome will have a place to maintain its current value until this whole mess blows over and more awesome can be pumped into the system.

[Joe Mac]

Matthew wrote:
personally I use the assigned probability method from AD&D 1e, which appeared alongside attribute checks in AD&D 2e's First Quest.

Eh...which method? Can you elaborate, so I know if this is something I'm doing already, or have somehow missed?
Thanks

[Matthew]

DangerDwarf wrote:
I soooo want to understand what you just said. I'm number-tarded though.
You folks that can figure stuff like that out make me jealous.

Ha, ha. Well, if you look at the above chart; say your character has a Dexterity of 12, the three rows below 12 show the percentage chance of success for an attribute check (rolling 12 or under = 60%), a SIEGE check where Dexterity is not prime (rolling 18 or over = 15%), and a SIEGE check where Dexterity is prime (rolling 12 or over = 45%).

Joe Mac wrote:
Eh...which method? Can you elaborate, so I know if this is something I'm doing already, or have somehow missed?
Thanks

No doubt one you are already using. The 1e DMG discusses it on page 110:

Quote:
Rolling the Dice and Control of the Game

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.

This was left out of the AD&D 2e core books, though it appears in First Quest. I put the question to David Cook a good few months back, and he indicated that it was something he should in hidsight have included, but did not because he did not favour it as a method of resolution. Whenever a dungeon key says "Secret Door, X in Y chance of detection" the same procedure is being followed.

For some further discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, you might be interested in this thread: Actions the Rules Don't Cover.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Joe Mac]

Matthew wrote:
No doubt one you are already using. The 1e DMG discusses it on page 110...

Ah, thanks -- yep, I do that a lot, sometimes just on a humble D6.

I like this approach you offered on the linked thread:

0% Impossible

10% Very Difficult

30% Difficult

50% Medium

70% Easy

90% Very easy

100% Automatic

By simply evaluating, on the fly, the character's capabilites versus the difficulty of the action for that character, such a simple approach could work about as well as anything else, really -- and is entirely Gygaxian.

[Matthew]

Joe Mac wrote:
Ah, thanks -- yep, I do that a lot, sometimes just on a humble D6.

I like this approach you offered on the linked thread:

0% Impossible

10% Very Difficult

30% Difficult

50% Medium

70% Easy

90% Very easy

100% Automatic

By simply evaluating, on the fly, the character's capabilites versus the difficulty of the action for that character, such a simple approach could work about as well as anything else, really -- and is entirely Gygaxian.

Yes indeed. That is my preferred method for randomised and abstracted task resolution. I still use SIEGE checks for character abilities and saving throws; though in those cases I treat all Humans as requiring a base 15 (rather than 18 or 12) and all Demi humans as needing a base 16.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[FASAfan]

Omote wrote:
I seem to recall getting into some rules debates about the effects of some spells (or something like this) in the PHB versus what was described in the DMG, but it has been so long that I can't remember specifics.

I like the 2E game a great deal, but in my opinion the rules themselves are not as "streamlined" as C&C.

-O

I agree, and I can't really put my finger on specifics, either, other than some "loose change". There were things in 2nd edition that my group never understood well (or never made the effort to understand): Rear AC, Surprised AC, Dispel Magic (ugh), and figuring out Jog and Run rates.

Of course, my biggest beef with 2nd was the 1 minute round. "I've got a whole minute!? I should be able swing my sword umpteen times! What do you mean I can only swing it once!?"

Regardless, we all had a blast while playing 2nd. The stories are timeless and the mechanic troubles fuzzy- as it should be!

Lee

[Joe]

What I thought was beautiful...(And my condolences to those coming from a 2nd E background...Gygax rocks!)

But what I think was beautiful about the original game, is I don't remember any of this detail crap really coming up. Everyones group played a little different and that was ok.

I hated 2nd E because it dissed Gary. (RIP) Sure i could go ninto how I hate thaco, the cheesy munchkin skills and powers etc. But the bottom line is I went to Rolemaster because TSR forgot their roots, and they had Middle Earth and I love ME.

3.5 seemed a savior now having consise rules, but I found myself wishing for the days when the dm said..."hmm, roll a 20" and life just went on.

It felt like playing chess instead of D&D.

C&C is a little loosy goosy for me but out of all the available rules now...and after the abomination releaed by WOTC, I find it the best alternative to dusting off the old AD&D released in the 70's.

But now that I think about it...it may not be a bad idea.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[papercut]

DangerDwarf wrote:
See, that's where I think we have fooled ourselves. It is neither quicker nor easier. Just different.

For example:


A pile of rocks dislodges from the ceiling, falling towards the PC:
DM: Make a Dex check

CK: Make a Dex check

Only difference? One is a high roll, other is a low roll.
A thief is sneaking up behind a mark:

DM: Roll to move silent.

CK: Roll to move silent.

Only difference? One is percentile one is d20.

It goes on and on. The only difference is the type of die rolled in most instances, and that does not make a game harder nor does it make it take longer.

Attack rolls?

One has one count of addition, the other one count of subtraction. No extra work there either.

Saves?

d20 vs. d20.

Siege mechanics let me do .

Well, ability checks let me do .

The systems are identical on what they allow and the ease and quickness with which you can accomplish the things. Primary difference, one is addition the other is subtraction.

I prefer AD&D because, as I've mentioned in the past, I've never been a fan of the "big numbers" that the ascending bonuses lead to. It boils down to a matter of taste. The ease of the systems is pretty much equal.

You have a point, the games are really the same. Its just how the math is organized. I do prefer the 3e+ plus way of handling it. I loved 2e, but I never really completely knew to roll high or low- dice rolling take alot of juju ya know. I often had to ask the DM, lol; he was a great GM too. Everything was by the seat of his pants, a method I prefer.

I missed the launch of 3e, but when it was explained to me by 6 month vets, I just though, "Ok, they just inverted AC." And then moved on. Of course by that time we were playing alot of the d10 L5R game. A great system for that genre.
_________________
Someone send me some dice!