Dare I ask?

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by raymond_turney

These objectives had little to do with rolling D100 instead of D20; in fact I'm convinced that rolling one die rather than two speeds up the game, so going to D100 was probably a mistake. I now think the best compromise between minimizing the number of dice you have to roll and read and maximizing granularity is probably D30; but my house system Fire and Sword {available as a PDF on this site, which I encourage people to look at} uses D20 most of the time. D100 vs D20 in a system was a relatively minor issue then, and I'm inclined to think it is not a big deal now.

D30? Have never seen such a dice before. Could you explain abit more?

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

D30 was a 30 sided die. I think it was Armory who came up with it., THen they did a bunch of tables and stuff to support it. Probably a close to gimmicky as the RPG hobby has gotten.

[soltakss]

Well, RQ succeeded in (a) - (e) and (f) was fine for a long while.

So, I think it achieved it's design objectives admirably.

[soltakss]

I am going to be very cheeky here, so forgive me if I overstep any marks or boundaries.

Ray Turney is one of the authors of the original RQ and I would like to ask Ray a question.

What do you think of the fact that Issaries has licensed Mongoose to make a new version of RQ?

Several people on this forum have expressed the idea that such a move is very disrepectful to the original authors.

As one of the otiginal authors, I would love to know your views/opinions on this?

Of course, you are quite welcome to say "No comment" and we would understand.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

D30 was a 30 sided die. I think it was Armory who came up with it., THen they did a bunch of tables and stuff to support it. Probably a close to gimmicky as the RPG hobby has gotten.

Surely that "d10-inside-a-d10" thing mentioned a while back is more gimmicky than a d30? OK, it's more useful - so 'gadgety' rather than gimmicky, I guess.
IMHO d30's are a bit too big and clunky to be usable (safely!)...

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by raymond_turney

Since I was there, let me note that RQ had a number of design objectives: <snip>

Thanks very much for that - a useful insight.

I suspect the 'd100 v d20' thing is less about the dice actually used and more about the ethos of the systems with those labels. (Neatly covered by point a: "reasonably simple rule mechanics based on skills not arbitrary classes").

Should've realized the whole SR/HitLoc malarkey (the two bits I liked least in RQ) were caused by some pesky LARPers!

Looks likely we're about to get a whole host of different magic systems. I hope you're happy!

Many thanks for your part in the creation of a great system: RQ - still the best!

(PS: I too would welcome any comment you care to make confirming the view that MRQ is the spawn of the Devil and his Mongoose biatches...)

[badcat]

For many of us, I expect it just has to do with granularity. I know it does for me, but I also admit that at some point about five years ago I started getting disgusted with WOTC's 'one die to rule them all' shtick. Nevertheless, I do consider percentiles to be a more flexible choice than a D20 for rpg resolution systems, from a practical GMing perspective.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

D30? Have never seen such a dice before. Could you explain abit more?

SGL.

d30 looks like a bigger d20 (or so) only with 30 sides. Friends of me use one from time to time for damage of special weapons and armor rolls.

Ah...and to Ray: Many many thanks for inventing RQ. It improved my life (till today).

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Surely that "d10-inside-a-d10" thing mentioned a while back is more gimmicky than a d30? OK, it's more useful - so 'gadgety' rather than gimmicky, I guess.
IMHO d30's are a bit too big and clunky to be usable (safely!)...

Like you said the d10 in a d10 thing is useful. Basically it is creating a die to use for D100 rolls.

With D30 they created the die and then worked up some used for it. Sort of like creating a new antidote and then inventing a bunch of new toxins so you can sell it.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by badcat

For many of us, I expect it just has to do with granularity. I know it does for me, but I also admit that at some point about five years ago I started getting disgusted with WOTC's 'one die to rule them all' shtick. Nevertheless, I do consider percentiles to be a more flexible choice than a D20 for rpg resolution systems, from a practical GMing perspective.

I agree. I also like % for evaluation purposes more than d20. Using a d20 you have to re-calculate all the probabiltity chances back into %. Eg a climb 17 means a 85% to sucessfully climb a tree. Why not using a 85 from the begin of the situation? % is so much more intutive. Humans are good in evalutating situtations in % and we are often used to it in our dally life. Why we should use in roleplaying artifical ranges of 1-20? (not to mention those awful dice pool systems - spit)

Mathematically a d20 is not much difference to %, but from the viewpoint of usabiilty and practice, % is easier to use, IMO