The Humble d20 or the Versatile d100?

[Gan The Grey]

I know there are many systems out there based around the d20, and many systems based around the d100. I'm confident that many of our members have played both on various occasions.

My questions are these:

1. What are the benefits to d20 based rolling systems over d100?

2. What are the benefits to d100 based rolling systems over d20?

3. Can you name a unique aspect to any d20 system that you really like? Don't like?

4. Can you name a unique aspect to any d100 system that you really like? Don't like?

All opinions, biased or unbiased, are welcome and encouraged!

[Yuki Akuma]

FATAL is based around the d100.

So the d20 is automatically superior in every way.

[Kurald Galain]

That's not such a useful comparison.

Dice systems that are actually meaningfully different include those that use a bell curve (e.g. 2d10 or 3d6) and dice pool systems (roll Xd6 or Yd10 and count all dice that show a value greater than Z).


(1) Marginally faster
(2) Greater granularity that doesn't matter in practice
(3) Plenty, but none that are related to dice rolling
(4) Plenty, but none that are related to dice rolling

[Coidzor]

FATAL is based around the d100.

So the d20 is automatically superior in every way.

:smallamused: I think that'd count as an Ad Hominem attack if it weren't for the fact that FATAL is FATAL and what its creators must have been.

[Gan The Grey]

That's not such a useful comparison.

Dice systems that are actually meaningfully different include those that use a bell curve (e.g. 2d10 or 3d6) and dice pool systems (roll Xd6 or Yd10 and count all dice that show a value greater than Z).


Granted, but I'm more interested in your opinion on the actual d20 or d100 aspects to those games. Like the skills portion, or the to hit chance, or...so on and so forth.

[Kurald Galain]

Granted, but I'm more interested in your opinion on the actual d20 or d100 aspects to those games. Like the skills portion, or the to hit chance, or...so on and so forth.

...but they're exactly the same. The only difference is that you can set DCs by one-percent increments instead of by five-percent increments.

[Yuki Akuma]

:smallamused: I think that'd count as an Ad Hominem attack if it weren't for the fact that FATAL is FATAL and what its creators must have been.

I was wrong, too. FATAL doesn't just use d100. Sometimes it uses D10,000,000.

To choose between five outcomes.

I'm dead serious.

[SurlySeraph]

:smallamused: I think that'd count as an Ad Hominem attack if it weren't for the fact that FATAL is FATAL and what its creators must have been.

It was meant as a parody and got out of hand.

I believe this, because if I believed that it was intended to be what it is I think I would try to destroy the world.

[Gan The Grey]

...but they're exactly the same. The only difference is that you can set DCs by one-percent increments instead of by five-percent increments.

It's hard to be exactly the same when there are differences. :smallsmile: What you said though helps illustrate the reason for my question. How do these systems use such a subtle difference? Are these differences good? Are they bad? Why? I'm looking for examples.

And not just in the rolling itself. How do the rules revolve around these differences? Leveling wise? Modifier wise? Fumble/Crit wise?

Don't feel like I'm picking on you Kurald, you are just the only one to give me a response so far. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Well, to be fair, it is a tricky question. and the differences at least seem like they'd be subtle for the ones which are real.

[Emmerask]

Hm the only system that comes to my mind for d100 would be rolemaster but it is not different then d&d because it uses a d100 insteadf of a d20 it is because the battle rules are completly different.

The only difference in d100 vs d20 would be that the dm can finetune the encounters more ie 1% increases instead of 5% but that is so subtle that you don´t really perceive it another thing would be that there will be more mediocre rolls and less extremes the more sides your dice have (which is a downside in my book)

[Gan The Grey]

Alright, let me give an example, to get the ball rolling.

One thing I don't like about d20, specifically DnD, is the aspect of the automatic failure on a 1 in combat. No matter how good you get, you will always have a 5% chance to automatically fail in combat, and your chances of failing in combat actually increase as you gain more attacks. No matter what you do, with a d20, there is no way to reduce that automatic failure chance below 5%.

[Thurbane]

I think the only d100 based game I ever played was the original Twilight 2000. It was good for it's time. Can't say it had any particular advantages or disadvantages, though.

[Akisa]

Alright, let me give an example, to get the ball rolling.

One thing I don't like about d20, specifically DnD, is the aspect of the automatic failure on a 1 in combat. No matter how good you get, you will always have a 5% chance to automatically fail in combat, and your chances of failing in combat actually increase as you gain more attacks. No matter what you do, with a d20, there is no way to reduce that automatic failure chance below 5%.

Actually those rules of automatic failure are house rules, annoying and evil (in my opinion).

[Yuki Akuma]

Actually those rules of automatic failure are house rules, annoying and evil (in my opinion).

He said 'in combat'. Rolling a 1 on an attack roll or a saving throw (the majority of combat rolls) is (GASP!) an automatic failure.

[Emmerask]

Alright, let me give an example, to get the ball rolling.

One thing I don't like about d20, specifically DnD, is the aspect of the automatic failure on a 1 in combat. No matter how good you get, you will always have a 5% chance to automatically fail in combat, and your chances of failing in combat actually increase as you gain more attacks. No matter what you do, with a d20, there is no way to reduce that automatic failure chance below 5%.

but there is also the 5% chance of dealing a critical hit and the more attacks you have the more critical hits you can get and of course in most cases the crit range is atleast twice the auto fail range ie in most cases a 10% chance to deal double or tripple damage.

If you would use a d100 instead of the d20 you would decrease the autofail chance to 1% true but you would also decrease the crit chance to 2% which means 4%fail deacrease but 8% crit decrease all in all a decrease in melee power :smallwink:

[Yuki Akuma]

but there is also the 5% chance of dealing a critical hit and the more attacks you have the more critical hits you can get and of course in most cases the crit range is atleast twice the auto fail range ie in most cases a 10% chance to deal double or tripple damage.

If you would use a d100 instead of the you would decrease the autofail chance to 1% true but you would also decrease the crit chance to 2% which means 4%fail deacrease but 8% crit decrease all in all a decrease in melee power :smallwink:

There is a 5% or more chance of threatening a critical hit. Actually getting a critical hit is another matter. Usually it's about 2% with a weapon which has a crit range of 20 - although that depends on your enemy's AC of course. :smallwink:

If a 20 is the only way to hit him, you have a 0.25% chance of scoring a crit. Good luck!

[Akisa]

He said 'in combat'. Rolling a 1 on an attack roll or a saving throw (the majority of combat rolls) is (GASP!) an automatic failure.

I'm pretty sure he's was mostly talking about attack rolls, lets take a look at his post again to make sure.


Alright, let me give an example, to get the ball rolling.

One thing I don't like about d20, specifically DnD, is the aspect of the automatic failure on a 1 in combat. No matter how good you get, you will always have a 5% chance to automatically fail in combat, and your chances of failing in combat actually increase as you gain more attacks. No matter what you do, with a d20, there is no way to reduce that automatic failure chance below 5%.

Notice the bold, to me it looks like he's mostly talking about attack rolls.

[Yuki Akuma]

I'm pretty sure he's was mostly talking about attack rolls, lets take a look at his post again to make sure.



Notice the bold, to me it looks like he's mostly talking about attack rolls.

So you in fact completely agree with me? Good to know.

[Emmerask]

ah you are right I forgot the confirmation aspect on the 19
in most cases (except bbeg fights) a 10 will be enough to hit (with a near full bab melee + buffs + magic items) so lets say 50% of the time being much easier to calculate, I m lazy and its quite early in the morning :smallwink:

so we have the 1% chance for the 100 (autocrit) and the ~0,5% chance for the 99 and 50+

vs 5% chance for the 20 and 2,5% for the 19 and 10+which is still a 6% decrease vs the 4% decrease in failures overall still a decrease in melee power :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Do systems that use d100 actually do that sort of critical hit on max roll only, critical fail/auto-fail on minimum roll only thing though?

[Emmerask]

Well rolemaster (a d100 system) has pretty good crit system but it uses crit tables (and fumble tables) for that

[Akisa]

So you in fact completely agree with me? Good to know.

No not really because the amount of automatic failure for saving throws don't increase as you level. You don't get to make two or more saves for the same spell as you level.

[Emmerask]

but the spells become more lethal as you level and have greater impact on the characters well being ^^

[Yuki Akuma]

No not really because the amount of automatic failure for saving throws don't increase as you level. You don't get to make two or more saves for the same spell as you level.

But you will be making more saving throws as you level, because high-level monsters have more abilities that require saves.

Hah.

[Weimann]

I feel that the whole "auto-miss" issue is due to the layout of the system, not a product of the dice rolls. I'm sure there could have been other solutions to prevent a 100% success rate from occurring.

1. What are the benefits to d20 based rolling systems over d100?

Smaller numbers are easier to calculate with. I'm not saying I don't think you can't count up to 100, but if you're playing an RPG, you want the numbers to be easy and intuitive.

2. What are the benefits to d100 based rolling systems over d20?

A d100 system will allow for more degrees of moderation. Since every step on a d20 will count for 5 steps on a d100, you can hand out for example +8 bonuses without resorting to decimals, where in D20 you'd have to give a +2, which is slightly more.

3. Can you name a unique aspect to any d20 system that you really like? Don't like?

4. Can you name a unique aspect to any d100 system that you really like? Don't like?

I don't think I can, but it's probably more an issue of lacking gaming experience than there being none.

As you can see, the differences aren't big, and will probably only occur in the handling of numbers. The die is, after all, just a tool; it is how the system handles the die rolls that determine it's qualities.

I personally like systems that work with small numbers. It makes each +1 matter more and feels more hands-on.

[Akisa]

But higher level characters have more immunities :P

DM: I need saving throw for fear
Player 1: Fear what's that?
DM: I need a saving a saving throw for slay living player 2.
Player 2: I use my death block ability on my armor.
DM: Ok monster uses quicken grease
Player 1: I have wing boots
Player 2: ring of freedom
Player 3: Overland flight

[Yuki Akuma]

Player 4: Five ranks in Balance.

[Satyr]

Percentile Dice are better for a roll lower or equal system, while the D20 work better for a roll and add system; both have their strengths, but in different areas and circumstances.
That said, I think that a percentile dice is more granulated in its results and offer finer and more detailed results, whichalso indicate finer and more detailed character traits, skills etc. The D20 in comparison look clumsy and heavy-handed, but is certainly the easier, but moire superficial choice.

[BobTheDog]

Player 4: Five ranks in Balance.

Fighter: Stupid bard with his fancy skill points.

[Gan The Grey]

Alright nevermind. Maybe I didn't ask the question well enough. I was really hoping to get some examples from those systems that are cool or aren't, like a skill leveling system in a d100 game that isn't dependent on experience points, but if you use the skill in a game session, you have a percent chance of it increasing by one point at the end of the session. That kinda stuff. I'm really looking for SPECIFIC aspects of what you like about how those systems work in conjunction with the die type being rolled.

I think this thread has gotten too far off topic though.

[Yuki Akuma]

I can't even think of any d100 systems off the top of my head. Do you know any?

[JonestheSpy]

Alright nevermind. Maybe I didn't ask the question well enough. I was really hoping to get some examples from those systems that are cool or aren't, like a skill leveling system in a d100 game that isn't dependent on experience points, but if you use the skill in a game session, you have a percent chance of it increasing by one point at the end of the session. That kinda stuff. I'm really looking for SPECIFIC aspects of what you like about how those systems work in conjunction with the die type being rolled.

I think this thread has gotten too far off topic though.

Well, what you're really talking about, it sounds like, is the differences between games that use character levels and games that don't. In my old school frame of reference, it's the DnD model vs the Chaosium model, though of course there were plenty of other games out there that used similar systems.

3rd addition DnD actually incoporated a lot of elements from non-leveling systems (such as skill points and raising ability scores over time), so the differences between the two became much smaller.

Still, the main differences are that D100 characters are still much more individually tailored, while the d20 characters are still built araound specific templates, though you can individualize them far more now than in earlier editions.

[Glimbur]

I can't even think of any d100 systems off the top of my head. Do you know any?

Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader use d100. They're different in a couple other ways too; you typically roll versus your skill with modifiers based on if the task is really hard or really easy, rather than the skill being a bonus against a sliding DC based on target. This makes it easier to make characters that generally have about a 40% chance of success on shooting stuff, but when you start stacking modifiers it gets better.

[Knaight]

Roll under is very typical. Which I personally feel is a weakness, two people rolling under their own skills is hardly the fastest system for opposed rolls, even if you look at how much they failed by. There are either extra steps, or a lot of rolls. Granted, it can be done well(Ie GURPS, which is 3d6, not d100), but in general it seems clunky. And tables appear with an annoying frequency.

[erikun]

1. What are the benefits to d20 based rolling systems over d100?
Smaller range of numbers.


2. What are the benefits to d100 based rolling systems over d20?
Larger range of numbers.


3. Can you name a unique aspect to any d20 system that you really like? Don't like?

4. Can you name a unique aspect to any d100 system that you really like? Don't like?
Not really, no. There are some unique aspects of systems that happen to use d20, just as there are some unique aspects of systems that happen to use d%. However, these aren't dependant on the size of the dice.

d20 and d% really aren't very different at all; they're just a factor of 5. You could multiply all the numbers in D&D by 5, swap the d20 for a d%, and end up with virtually the same game. (This is different than, say, the difference between d20 and 3d6, which changes from a flat curve to a bell curve.)

The difference between d20 and d% is mostly appearance. d20 uses smaller numbers, and so looks simpler and more concise. d% has a wider value range, and so appears to have a more precise and technical edge. The presentation and appearances of a system to matter to the final product, but for the purposes of calculations/design, the two are virtually identical.


Alright nevermind. Maybe I didn't ask the question well enough. I was really hoping to get some examples from those systems that are cool or aren't, like a skill leveling system in a d100 game that isn't dependent on experience points, but if you use the skill in a game session, you have a percent chance of it increasing by one point at the end of the session. That kinda stuff. I'm really looking for SPECIFIC aspects of what you like about how those systems work in conjunction with the die type being rolled.
The only system that I am familiar with like that is Burning Wheel, but that is a dice pool system. It certainly seems doable, and the 1-100 range on skills would give the system more "lifetime" between high and low ranks in a skill. However, that's more dependant on the system and number, and not too much on the dice the system uses.

[penbed400]

Alright nevermind. Maybe I didn't ask the question well enough. I was really hoping to get some examples from those systems that are cool or aren't, like a skill leveling system in a d100 game that isn't dependent on experience points, but if you use the skill in a game session, you have a percent chance of it increasing by one point at the end of the session. That kinda stuff. I'm really looking for SPECIFIC aspects of what you like about how those systems work in conjunction with the die type being rolled.

I think this thread has gotten too far off topic though.

Runequest, one of the best d100 games I've seen so far, though I haven't seen many. I've had a few posts about this before but yea, I think it's a fairly good system. Better than D&D in fact, though nobody in my group wants to play it. I think thats for the same reason they won't switch to 4e though, they don't want to learn a whole new game. It has what you're looking for which is a new way of leveling and personally I think it makes a lot more sense than the very video game way that D&D takes towards leveling up. Skills should progress slowly over time. If before an encounter you have a +3 BAB and after you have a +4, that may work if you learn something new every encounter but its not very realistic.

For leveling, each time you do something succesful, such as hit and do damage in a combat you get a check in that skill. The next time you spend a week in rest with no encounter, you roll a d100, if it goes over your skill then you roll a d6 and add it to your current % to get your new %,(or take the +3 option rather than rolling a d6). So if you have a 1h long sword % of 87 that has a check, you rest a week, roll a 93 on your d100 roll. Now you may choose to add 3 to get a percent of 90 or to roll a d6 and add that, so you may get a 1 for 88% or a 6 for 93%. If you didn't get over, then your check just goes away. It makes it harder to get better the closer and closer you come to getting perfect, get it? Any questions are welcome.

So yea I'm just going to be comparing D&D to Runequest to adress these questions which I think is something you're more looking for than d20 to d100.

1. What are the benefits to d20 based rolling systems over d100?

It's simple, you roll a d20 and wham, bam, thank you mam you have your score automatically. I think this is more because people find it easier to add 17 and 8 to make 25 instantly rather than taking 43 and adding 17 to make 60. Not that I don't think people can do it, but subconsciously they see smaller numbers as easier to add. Not just the addition but having stuff happen to you is easier, AC 30 monster, roll to hit, if you get over you hit, if not you don't. This is very different from Runequest combat which I'll explain later. But yea, basically D20 is simpler though this is more comparing D&D to Runequest now.

2. What are the benefits to d100 based rolling systems over d20?

It's more realistic. It simply makes more sense than D&D does but with that comes the fact that the game gets more complicated. Peoples armor is completely invincible, you aren't automatically proficient in every weapon automatically because all weapons are different, dodging is taken into acount a little more, so is your combat abilities. Your 1h long sword % is 87, fairly high because you've been a warrior in your tribe for years. You roll a 43, which is under your % so its a good hit. The guy gets a dodge or parry chance, or maybe he has taken a double defensive action because you look big. He has a parry of 45, he does an exceptionally good parry and gets a 03, so he crits and deflects your weapon into the ground or has it in an advantageous position of your swing so it stops double. His sword has an AC 12 and HP 9, (not sure if those are the actual numbers I cant remember), he stops 24 because of his critical, you roll damage and do 15 damage, so his sword stops. He doesn't dodge because you don't have another attack. See so it takes a lot more into account. Sure D&D has armor class bonus, and dex bonus to AC but it's more a simplification of how actual combat goes so if you want realism, then Runequest can help with that a little more than D&D.

3. Can you name a unique aspect to any d20 system that you really like? Don't like?

You get to be a superhero. It's a lot of fun to just go out there and have a strength score of 36 and beat the pulp out of everything. It's also very video-gamey. Video games are fun and I personally enjoy this part of the game more than most of it.

4. Can you name a unique aspect to any d100 system that you really like? Don't like?

The realism, also I've always liked low magic, low wealth games, like you can't just get massive amount of treasures all the time. It's a hard knock life ya know?

[Jayabalard]

...but they're exactly the same. The only difference is that you can set DCs by one-percent increments instead of by five-percent increments.yeah that's exactly what I was thinking... I'm not sure why there's even a question about it.

[KurtKatze]

Call of Cthulhu works a bit like it. Using W100

You have to rolll below your score in the skill in order to succeed in a check.

You have a number of different "every-day" skills. Like "Medicine", "PHide", "Spot Hidden", "Drive(...)". Some of those are Profession skills, you can invest your Education *20 points into them. They are specified through your actual profession. To a maximum of... well, i dm fiat it to 75%.

In addition you get Int * 10 Points for "Hobby-skills" Every skill which is not a profession skill is a hobby skill.

There are also Combat skills (Fistpunch, Guns, Rifles) if you fail your roll u miss, if you score a 95-00 it is a critical miss (weapon malfunction etc) if you score under 15% of your invested skillpoints you score a crit 2x dmg always.

After a session, every skill you have used successfully can be improved. You roll W100 have to roll a failure, in that case you can up the skill by 1w10.

It is quite a nice system, although it is not so great for a lengthy campaign, as the characters would increase too many skills in too short IG Time. But as "Investigators" tend to die young this isnt much of a problem ^^

[Kurald Galain]

Roll under is very typical. Which I personally feel is a weakness, two people rolling under their own skills is hardly the fastest system for opposed rolls, even if you look at how much they failed by.

It is fast if you rule it like this:

(1) both parties roll d%
(2) if one character succeeds (i.e. rolls under his skill value) and the other fails, then the first character wins the contested roll
(3) otherwise, then the highest roll wins

[Jayabalard]

I can't even think of any d100 systems off the top of my head. Do you know any?All of the palladium systems use d100 for skills (though they still use d20 for attack rolls). Powers and Perils used d100 pretty much exclusively (it came with 2d10 where I filled in the sides with crayon). The old Conan RPG (the one by TSR in the 80s) used d100 for skills along with a weird color coded table thing to determine success/fails. I'm pretty sure that Top Secret/SI used d100, though my recollection of that system is incredibly vague. Paranoia (at least 1e did). MERP.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of them are far from current.

[bosssmiley]

...but they're exactly the same. The only difference is that you can set DCs by one-percent increments instead of by five-percent increments.

/murmurs "sub-tables" :smallwink:

Lobbing a single d20 is just easier than rolling two d10s for a d% roll. Of course, True Scientific Realism lies in using nested d6 tables.

[erikun]

Having thought about this a bit, I think the question isn't really the size of the dice, but rather if a "add bonuses" system is better than a "roll under" system.

In the add bonuses system, you roll the dice, add the relevant bonuses, and compare them to a set difficulty to determine success. One of the big benefits is that it is simple to learn and understand. Having a Drive+30% skill means you roll the dice and add 30% to the value; something with a 40% difficulty would be relatively easy, while 120% difficulty would be hard (although not impossible). The player can look at their sheet and easily see how good they are at various tasks, and from knowing the difficulty, can easily determine how likely they are to succeed.

The problem is that such a system doesn't make much sense outside the system. "120% difficulty" doesn't make much sense in relation to reality: What does it mean that something is "120% difficult"? Something like 70% difficulty mean a 70% chance of failure, with a higher percentage meaning a higher chance of failure. Also, larger numbers in such a system become increasingly rediculous - when you get up to "Strength+357%" or "400% difficulty defense" then the numbers just aren't making any sense relative to reality.

In the roll under system, the bonuses/penalities are applied directly to the chance to succeed, with rolling equal to/under the number a success and above the number a failure. For example, driving quickly on icy roads would be around a 25% chance of success. You have a Drive+30% skill, meaning your driving skills are 30% better than everyone else, so you have a 55% chance at success. You want to roll 55 (or lower) to succeed. The advantage is that such numbers are clearly understood by anyone: a 55% chance of success means just that, and being better at a task means you have a greater chance of success.

The problem is that such a system is opaque - the players can't clearly (or easily) see the mechanics underneath. Drive+30% doesn't mean you can tackle difficulties between 30%-130%; rather, it is something the GM factors in when setting the chance for success. It also means more work for the GM, as they are the ones responsible for setting the difficulty and remembering all the modifiers for all the characters. This is much how older editions of D&D worked, where players testing an ability score would roll d20 and compare it to the relevant ability score. (at score or less = success, above score = failure) Of course, the big problem was including that with the d20 + bonuses for attack rolls... trying to use both methods in the same system will just confuse people.