[RQ-Rules] RQ3, RQ2 task resolution and the dreaded D20

[Andrew Mellinger]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, grogthing wrote:

> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: grogthing <grogthing at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
> To: RuneQuest rules discussion. <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
> Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ3, RQ2 task resolution and the dreaded D20
> 
> Switch from D% to D20? Why?
>
> I am writing a game that is strictly D% (abilities as
> well as skills) kind of a customized blend of BRP and
> the old FASA Star Trek system, because I feel D%
> percentile is easier to understand than any other
> numbering/rating system.
>
> Percentile evaluation is ingrained in our language as
> a way to communicate the chance of success to someone.
>
> You've got a 50%/50% chance. I'm 100% sure about that.

   Before I get into my real point I want to mention that a lot of people 
are better at odds (1 in 10 or 1 in 6) than numbers liks 31%.

   I used to argue this as well, but I've changed my tune over the years, 
here's why.

   Because everyone understands percentiles, they immediately think they 
know what it means.  "I have a 50 in my skill so I should be able to hit 
the guy one out of every two times."  But under what conditions and when? 
All of a sudden the guy can dodge and you're not hitting any more.  So the 
50/50 doesn't really matter.

   What we found (and believe me when I say this) was that players (of all 
levels) we misled about the context of that skill level.  Once you add in 
any other factors, which are always there, you've lost that level of 
understanding.

   When we switch to D20 we created a skill mapping to description.  (Got 
the idea from RQ AiG).

3 = Noveice
6 = Student
9 = Trained
12 = Skilled
15 = Expert
18 = Master

   We then made sure to design, describe and calibrate every skill so that 
people can do what they expect a person of that skill level to be able to 
do.  Obviously, there is disagreement about this too, but a lot less than 
about what a number means.

   So when a person has a skill of 12 and they are trying to do something, 
they think "Should a skilled person be able to do that."

   Or a master (18) with some wounds is now at a skill of 12.  He knows he 
is fighting as effectively as someone who is skilled.

   When we design a new skill, we say "What should somebody who is skilled 
be able to accomplish?"

   Also, we have tables to show training time to skill.  We can determine 
what the average starting level for some based off of training is.  Thus 
we can say "A person who had this many weeks of training can do this."  We 
convert the weeks to skill level (from out table) then use that skill 
level to drive the definition of the skill.

   Players really seem to like the Trained, Skilled, Expert verbage and 
relate to it very well.

-Andrew