Topic: you tube review

[Kapow]

I'm with KW on this, and I am somewhat surprised by the ad hominems he got. He is simply pointing to a flaw he is seeing as a non-initiated.

And I thinks he's right: while not necessarily a flaw, I think it is a design decision that is not easy to defend. As an analogy, consider a car that had the gear shift on the top of the hood, and every time you want to change gears you'd have to reach outside -- but otherwise the car would be just perfect. When you complain about this design feature on a forum, the community lists a variety tricks: an extension shift, tag-team driving with designated steering and gear shifting roles, removing the wind shield, etc. Or the community lists a variety of advantages: it's a good stretching for one's back and shoulders, keeps you fit (kids these days do not get enough exercise), keeps you focused on the driving. Or the community criticizes you for not being flexible enough, wanting easiness and comfort in your driving. If you mainly want the car to take you and your friends from A to B, I think you are entitled to call the design unappealing -- despite the fact that the car is otherwise perfect and despite the community has accustomed to it.

For me, it is not that I cannot do the math or whip out a calculator, it's just that it does not add anything to the game. One gains very little from using the 1-100 range (I am not sure it is a percentile, as it is not a probability) while one loses the convenience of lower range mechanics. Some may believe it adds "accuracy" to the game, but if you have done you probability 101, the gain is a nominal one. The range 1-20 would yield pretty much the same functionality. A rule-system being fundamentally a more or less arbitrary (if consistent) collection of heuristics to represent actions in an imaginary world in the first place, scaling up the value range does not really make it any more realistic or necessarily better. If the chances of success are around 30%, it does not matter whether you roll d20, d100, d1000 or d10000. Some say the game is better if it can represent skills at 31%, 32% and 34% too, and it is fine, but I fail to see the advantage.

I used to remember 20-30 phone numbers, but with mobile phones around I just don't bother anymore. The most fluent guy with numbers I've seen was a plumber. At a construction site, he has to constantly add, subtract, multiply and divide measurements and costs.

// Edit: I don't know about Knoxville, but in Europe, engineering involves computers for a reason.

[Cloven-Fruit-Games]

It does seem wrong to me that an engineer has a problem with what is, really, the most basic math out there: adding and subtracting. Sort-a-makes me not want to drive over any bridges or go up in tall buildings.

He is an engineer, not a mathmatician.
Engineers use calculators, becuase the calculations should be exact and double checked.

[pastaav]

Well...my thought is the point with d100OE is that you do with little effort can have a gut feeling of chances. If the net bonus if 56 and you have 100 as target number it is trival to tell that the successchance is 56%. If the target number is 111 you must subtract 11 from the result to get a 45% chance of success...yet it is still pretty easy.

It beats me how addition and subtraction of two digit numbers can be harder to perform than the division need to evaluate chance of success for more tricky dice mechanics.



 

[Kapow]

Well...my thought is the point with d100OE is that you do with little effort can have a gut feeling of chances. If the net bonus if 56 and you have 100 as target number it is trival to tell that the successchance is 56%. If the target number is 111 you must subtract 11 from the result to get a 45% chance of success...yet it is still pretty easy.

Well, if you did not get a gut feeling of chances, then the system would really be broken. It takes adding and subtracting to get that net bonus, so you don't get the gut feeling directly. It is probably not the most advanced math I have run into, but I can understand that somebody does not see the excitement of it. If the point of the system is to train your arithmetics routine, then it is perfect.

It's like a car with the gear shift on the bonnet/hood. It works, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not as convenient as having it inside (i.e., you have to stop to add/subtract vs. you can tell the result without least bit of effort).

It beats me how addition and subtraction of two digit numbers can be harder to perform than the division need to evaluate chance of success for more tricky dice mechanics.

... s-so you cannot understand why simple two-digit arithmetics is considered more difficult than something that is even more difficult. What?! Obviously, there are some hairier mechanics, but was that the point?

When we played RM2 regularly, we had a routine with the arithmetics. Since then we've played other games, and now the arithmetics seems like to unnecessary hassle. Things could be done more elegantly, IHMO. The value of HARP resides elsewhere. Were it simpler, it would really be a challenger to D&D.

And mathematicians don't sit all day adding and subtracting numbers, either.

[jasonbrisbane]

I dont understand the problem either.
<This may delve into a rant, so you have been warned>

In a real time gaming sense I see (and have experienced) the play using d100 as this:
You know your skill, lets say 56. You know you have a 56% of success (if your aiming for 101). If you have stats and bonuses to add, you would have worked them out prior to it being your turn - this is EXACTLY the same as d20 or ANY other game and ALL players do this so changing from d20 to d100 or 3d6 has no effect - all players want the best advantage and work this out prior to their turn.

You roll 1d100 and add your roll to 56 (eg: you roll 48 + 56 = 8 + 40+56 = 8 + 96 = 104.
My maths is the "old school" that they taught. The "new Maths" uses something similar to that to make calculations easier for kids (in the above example they would have said increase the 48 to 50, add to 56 (or change the 56 to 60) add them together and minus the numbers you added prior ie 2 (or 8 ).

I find d100 much better as it gives you a better range of numbers. If you miscalculate the numbers (which I frequently do and I dont care if players do either) then it wont make a BIG difference oin the result. (adding 48 to 56 and getting 103 or 106 has no effect on the result!)

In d20, where the numbers DO mean a big deal (a target of 20 is completely different from a target of 25) then all numbers and bonuses and calculations need to be EXACT. I frequently have/had issues with playing in a d20 game because I did not know every possible combination of rules to calculate every bonus and penlty to get the exact number. Trying to work out anf figure this out prior to my turn leaves my head spinning and frequently miscalcualting/misinterpreting the rule/s..

As I dont know every possible rule then I cant calculate the correct rules. Different books have different additons to races/professions/skills/spells/talents/etc making knowing all the rules a matter of getting all the books and knowing them all throughout.
As I see (and play it)  combat in HARP is a matter of getting the Main rule book. The only combat differences are with weapons that are not in that book - if your using a weapon from Martial Law then there is a Table for ALL the benefits and penatlies of using that weapon!

The exact reason people say they dont like d100 IS the reason I like it! - Everything in one place.
Tables, and d100, IMHO are very Good!

<end rant>

Keep up the Good work ICE. May d100 live forever.

[masque1223]

As I've said, I personally have no problem with D100, I'm used to it.  For my players, which is the reason I switched, it boils down to the fact that for them, it is quicker to calculate something like 15+8=23(total roll)-9(enemy DB)=14(number to look up on table) in their heads, than the D100 equivalent which would be something like 77+44=121(total roll)-47(enemy DB)=74(number to look up on table). 

Sure, we could use calculators, but we don't want to.  They want the number crunching to go by quickly.  The idea is to be immersed in one's character and in the plot, and the complaint of my players is having to use the D100 math takes away from the immersion.  Of course they can all do the math, they're not morons, they're all highly educated people.  But we're not a math club, we're playing a game, and we want the roll resolutions to be more effortless.  The idea is to have fun, not to have a bragging contest about who has the better math skills. 

We play to relax, and the bigger numbers can be an annoyance.  I'll accommodate my players anyway I can to maximize their enjoyment, and if I have to change dice, I will.  It's not like they want to play an actual (shudder) D20 System game, they love HARP.  The D100 scale just takes longer, so we adapt.

[jasonbrisbane]

See, I see it as this:

15 (your Roll) + 8 -9

You already know the 8-9 so you know that you simply roll and minus 1. You calculate the totals before you roll to make the game and combat flow faster and so you know if you've squashed the NPC bug quicker!

The same applies for D100.

77 (the d100 roll) + 44 - 47

Since we already know the 44-47 = -3 then you roll d100 and minus three from the roll.

All maths are very simply and come down to one calculation no matter how hard you work it out.
The only difference comes down to the fact that the playerfinds adding/subtracting two digit numbers too hard and can only work with one digit numbers...

I wont go any further with that as I'm sure it would be Moderated......

[masque1223]

That's how I do it, but I've been playing ICE games since I got into the hobby (with MERP).  They haven't.  Basically I have 4 players who grew up with D&D, and I've converted them to HARP.  If that means I have to use a different die, so be it.  It still counts as a win, to me.

[RandalThor]

It does seem wrong to me that an engineer has a problem with what is, really, the most basic math out there: adding and subtracting. Sort-a-makes me not want to drive over any bridges or go up in tall buildings.

He is an engineer, not a mathmatician.
Engineers use calculators, becuase the calculations should be exact and double checked.

Yes, but he has to know the math as well so that if the calculator spits out a weird number - he can recognize it. They are still taught the basics, or so I would hope.

[Arioch]

For me, it is not that I cannot do the math or whip out a calculator, it's just that it does not add anything to the game.

Well, using a wider range of numbers add something to the game: a certain level of detail and complexity which some people (mostly ICE fans I suppose  ) enjoy. Not all people enjoy this kind of detail, but that's a matter of tastes!

[RandalThor]

I guess I am one of those "fans" (YAY!!  ). I like both Shadowrun and 7th Seas, but my only problem with them is one of scale. For Shadowrun it is (basically) 1 to 6, and for 7th Seas it is 1 to 5. I like more room to grow.

Now I do think that 1 to 20 is a fine range and enough, but I don't think it is necessarily  better because of "ease." For me the (basic) math is no big deal and has helped me be able to do calculations both faster and with more accuracy. Something that I think is not a bad thing. Fun can be useful too.

[jasonbrisbane]

Well, using a wider range of numbers add something to the game: a certain level of detail and complexity which some people (mostly ICE fans I suppose  ) enjoy. Not all people enjoy this kind of detail, but that's a matter of tastes!

No, they have to add more races/professions/spells/talents/sourcebooks/modules/etc (ad nauseum) to make the game interesting!!

I was going to say the above but changed my mind.
I find it very humorous that  they cant add numbers but they can tell you 2000 different ways  of attacking and counterattacking and the EXACT numbers for all possible scenarios and the target numbers and possible chances of success.......

[Kapow]

I find it very humorous that  they cant add numbers but they can tell you 2000 different ways  of attacking and counterattacking and the EXACT numbers for all possible scenarios and the target numbers and possible chances of success.......

What I find humorous is the blatant and categorical inability to understand "their" point of view. It is as if one's intellect is measured by the complexity of his/her favorite dice mechanics ... until one day, one is no longer offended by other RPG systems. By 30-something, GMing is 90% fudging, so the rules are not that important anyway. By 40 you'd be happy to play pretty much any game.

And even more humorous is the consistent and deliberate confusion between "wanting to" and "being able to" -- a trick for a quickly hashed straw-man argument that leaves you stomping around in a seeming triumph.

Oh well. I'll go back to my subhuman activities.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Kapow is correct that there is a large difference between "wanting to" and "not being able to".

Kurt did an excellent job on the review. He had 1 personal issue and he was very upfront about it being a personal issue and NOT a problem with the game itself.

I, personally, am very pleased with the review.

ICE will not tolerate snarky or insulting comments about Kurt because of his personal preferences

If you find factual errors in his review that is one thing, but his personal preferences for using smaller numbers is now off-limits as a topic, and I am closing this thread.

Further discussion on the factual contents of the review itself is allowed. Discussion on the reviewer's personal preferences is not.

[munchy]

I also really think it was a really good review and I even liked that he pointed out that the number thing was just a personal preference and not something that was wrong with the game mechanics.

The only thing I found was a bit sad was the fact that CoM came a bit short in the review, in my opinion. On the other one of HARPs really strong sides, the magic system has been emphasised by this which might in fact really help the game.
Good review.