Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Good morning, Dakka!

I'm in the process of creating my own miniature game, a kind of post-apocalyptic skirmish story, and I'm thinking about using D100's and percentage style stats like an RPG.
What are your thoughts on a system like this? Would it work? Would you play something like that? Why/why not?

Discussion welcome! Looking forward to seeing what you think.

EDIT: Just a clarification: by 'D100' I mean 2 D10's read as hundreds and tens and so on.

Why not just scale it to a d20 system? I'd imagine that 5% increments would probably work pretty well (I can't imagine modifiers being seemingly odd numbers, e.g. "your target is in cover, that's minus 17% to hit...) and would avoid my personal pet peeve of having to roll a d100. Just my $.02, but people tend to have numeric anchoring points around multiples of 5, I bet if you had enough useful skills/stats that maxing a skill at the fastest pace possible wasn't a good idea you'd probably be able to get away with just rolling d20's!

As for the narrative (and the percent style stats), I would totally play a tabletop version of Fallout Tactics .

You would be better off using a 2 D10s as a D100 can be hard to read. Problem with games like this is it can take some time calculating things.

If it was fun I would play it. Also having nice miniatures will go a long way towards getting people interested.

brettz123 wrote:
You would be better off using a 2 D10s as a D100 can be hard to read.

Yes, with 'D100' I mean using two D10's and reading them as hundreds. Should probably clarify...

Thanks for the input so far, keep it coming!

GW's Necromunda precursor, Confrontation used something like this.

It was skirmish and used the 2d10 'd100' version for things iirc.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/14970/once-upon-a-time-in-the-west

Used a D100 and you put all the factors into the AGRO dial and read off the "to hit" percentage.

Sure, sounds good.

Assuming:
Does the degree of detail have meaningful differences? Does going from a 40 in a stat to a 41 really mean anything?

I've yet to see a skirmish system where there's enough granularity necessary that anything more than a d20 is needed.

Is your system going to have alot of opposed die rolls based on stats? I would hope so, because otherwise you're looking at having alot of charts, and charts are no fun.

Also, at a certain point, granularity can lead to detail levels best covered by RPG's.

Sum up, not saying it can't be done, but I don't see the point. Also, know that my preferences lean toward fast-playing skirmish games like Song of Blades, so increased granularity is something I'm instinctively suspicious of. Still, it's your game, why not go ahead and surprise us!

Lastly, and slightly related, if you're going to write a new post-apoc game, I highly recommend reading some of the sci-fi and post apoc Skirmish and games that are already out there (in the recent past) just beyond the mainstream.

-Neutron York 3000
-Wastelands Meltdown* (my club has played this quite a bit)
-Blasters and Bulkheads (or any of the "Goalsystem" based games)
-WarEngine *
-No Limits*
-In The Emperor's Name*
-Song of Blades and Heroes and/or Flying Lead (The Ganesha games systems are quite unique.
-Infinity
-Necromunda*

Games with a " * " are available online for free.

Not saying you can't do better, but it's amazing how often I look at someone's rules or proposed rule systems and think "man this has already been done better by _____"

It is somewhat true that there's a lot of Post Apocalyptic games out there...

Using D 100 for random generation of equipment etc works quite well.BUT most fast play games seem to be able to manage lots of variance with D 20 or less...if you dont use dice in a deterministic way ANY dice size even the common D 6 work well enough.

 Balance wrote:
Sure, sounds good.

Assuming:
Does the degree of detail have meaningful differences? Does going from a 40 in a stat to a 41 really mean anything?

It does in OuaTitW, because you fight cinematic cowboy battles and might aim to fast draw shoot the gun out of someone's hand while riding a horse off the roof of the saloon while drunk.

Before you worry about what dice you're going to use you need to figure out the rest of the rules and what your game needs. There's no inherent advantage or disadvantage to a particular number of sides on your dice, and no reason at all for the players to care about it.

There's rules for Fallout PnP here: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=63

It's a pretty fun D100 post-apoc RPG!

 chromedog wrote:
GW's Necromunda precursor, Confrontation used something like this.

It was skirmish and used the 2d10 'd100' version for things iirc.

Yes right I was going to mention this. If you look for some old WD's (perhaps prior to issue 130 or so) you can still find the rules for it.

It used a 'percentage' based system for both accuracy and the impact of weapons. It was immensely long winded, I remember trying to play a game with a friend and a game with just a handful of miniatures on the board (a few 1st edition IG guys against some 'gangers') took a couple of hours!

I agree with the consensus here that for the majority of the time a D20 is probably the best option. It works fantastically well for Infinity, just introducing a high level of variance but without getting too complex and bogged down in results. If GW games have shown over recent years that the humble D6 is not always enough, I think the D100 is going too far the other way - it will also give you problems with practical concerns of multiple dice rolls as well.

I think the only instance of where the D100 has worked well in campaign type systems, like injury rolls or something similar in games like Necromunda and Mordheim.

I had nothing against the idea of D100's but I hadn't even thought about the added complication of rolling several rolls at once, which is not practical at all with D100's. Two rolls would be four dice. So if you having weapons with a multiple burst value, well.
What about D10's? Or indeed, D20's. I am a well known sucker for Infinity though that might incline me towards D20's.
Hey. What about D4's. Wait... Scratch that.

Isn't the hit allocation table in Inquisitor a d100 roll?
From a personal point I like d10s more than d20s. I have no reason for this other than the way they feel in my hand and the nostalgia of my L5R and Star Wars d10 days

the hit allocation might be a D100, but Inquisitor is not, in my opinion, a skirmish game. I see it as a RPG with minis. Waaay to much granularity to be a functional wargame for me. Of course I am sure there are those that would disagree, but it is notable that nearly a decade after it was kicked out of the mainstream, Necromunda still gets far more attention than Inquisitor, a game that's only half as old.
In general, I do like D10's better as well, but like you it's more of a feel thing than a reasoned conclusion.

Back to the OP though.

When considering what dice to use, -or any other aspect of gameplay- it really should come down to the following two questions:
"Does this help or hinder gameplay?"
...and...
"Does this make the game more or less fun?"

Thanks for the input, everyone! Seems there are some mixed thoughts on here, I now have some things to think long and hard about. Maybe I'll end up with d4's!
I am quite the sucker for details and long-winded calculations for added 'realism', but maybe I should simplify a bit to keep it easy to learn and reasonably quick to play.

I sure am glad I asked you, it always helps to get outside opinions!

Not a problem amigo. I hope we didn't beat you down too hard with our many and varied opinions.

All the best with your project.

 soncka wrote:
I am quite the sucker for details and long-winded calculations for added 'realism', but maybe I should simplify a bit to keep it easy to learn and reasonably quick to play.

It's not just a question of learning, the bigger issue is that people just don't enjoy games with pointless extra mechanics. You have to ask yourself whether going from a 49% chance to hit to a 50% chance to hit is really enough of a difference to justify the use of a d100 and seven different tables to calculate wind speed, ammunition quality, etc. It might be more realistic, but is it really worth it compared to just rounding everything to the nearest 5% and using a d20? Especially when the random variation of a game with a relatively small number of rolls obliterates that 1% difference with a huge random error margin? It's possible that the answer is yes, if you're talking about a game-deciding event and an audience that wants maximum realism, but you really want to avoid adding complexity and "realism" just for the sake of having more detail.

Eilif wrote:

When considering what dice to use, -or any other aspect of gameplay- it really should come down to the following two questions:
"Does this help or hinder gameplay?"
...and...
"Does this make the game more or less fun?"

Perfect way of putting it!

Check out the Call Of Cthulhu RPG-it uses the 2D10 system to great effect.