D20 vs. White Wolf

[Anonymouswizard]

If subtraction is really a problem for you, try a 'roll under, roll high' system, where bonuses add to your skill, and penalties give a minimum number you have to roll. No subtraction at all, onlu addition.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to located my calculator, I'll be GURPSing in a few weeks and don't trust my ability to add up spent CP, it's as hard as subtraction!

[Menace]

Yes i know that substraction is technically harder but for any person above the age of 10 the difference is pretty much nonexistant unless they have some serious disorders.

Or i can just make penalties add to the result of your dice roll if that's really that hard.

[Talakeal]

Yes i know that substraction is technically harder but for any person above the age of 10 the difference is pretty much nonexistant unless they have some serious disorders.

Or i can just make penalties add to the result of your dice roll if that's really that hard.

It is easy to look down on people from the safety of the forums, but I find that basic arithmetic is really hard for a lot of otherwise perfectly normal people. They are able to get by in every day life and hold down a job just fine, but once they get to the gaming table they demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend numbers.

One of the players in my regular group needs to spend a good thirty seconds calculating d20+modifier vs. difficulty, and still frequently makes mistakes. She keeps a notepad next to her and by the end of the session the top page will be completely filled with longhand addition.

It baffles me, but she is far from the only person I have ever met like this. Some people are just not good at mental math.

[BWR]

It is easy to look down on people from the safety of the forums, but I find that basic arithmetic is really hard for a lot of otherwise perfectly normal people. They are able to get by in every day life and hold down a job just fine, but once they get to the gaming table they demonstrate a complete inability to comprehend numbers.

One of the players in my regular group needs to spend a good thirty seconds calculating d20+modifier vs. difficulty, and still frequently makes mistakes. She keeps a notepad next to her and by the end of the session the top page will be completely filled with longhand addition.

It baffles me, but she is far from the only person I have ever met like this. Some people are just not good at mental math.

Interestingly, some of the people who are worst at mental arithmetic that I know are physicists and computer programmers. It's not that they don't know math, it's just that they aren't good at doing it in their head since it's not something they do on a regular basis.

[Anonymouswizard]

Interestingly, some of the people who are worst at mental arithmetic that I know are physicists and computer programmers. It's not that they don't know math, it's just that they aren't good at doing it in their head since it's not something they do on a regular basis.

There's this joke I love, about how you can identify a mathematician by the fact they cannot count...

EDIT: also, I won't judge anybody who wants to use a calculator or written calculations to be safe, not everybody games with three engineers and two physicists.

[MeeposFire]

Yes i know that substraction is technically harder but for any person above the age of 10 the difference is pretty much nonexistant unless they have some serious disorders.

Or i can just make penalties add to the result of your dice roll if that's really that hard.

This is so not true that it hurts. This is why they went away from THAC0 in the transition from AD&D to 3e D&D. It gives people fits. It also has this odd tendency to create odd situations such as bonus subtracting from things and penalties adding but not every writer caught that and some would say a +3 bonus but it would really mean to subtract but with a different writer they might write a -3 bonus which is technically correct but nobody ever wants to think that way (for instance with things that boost AC).

For me I could do THAC0 in my sleep so no problems but there is a reason why my whole table had me do the calculations (and yes they could all do math heck one could somehow compute the value of any sale at the store in her head and the others could calculate things like tips in their head but THAC0 just blew over their heads) but yet they did not when playing 3e or 4e.

[Anonymouswizard]

But, subtraction featuring one or two digits is easy. It is, to put it bluntly, exactly the same as addition, just the other way. It isn't some mystical form of maths people can do, it's almost a nessecary skill for basic life.

[Ceaon]

But, subtraction featuring one or two digits is easy. It is, to put it bluntly, exactly the same as addition, just the other way. It isn't some mystical form of maths people can do, it's almost a nessecary skill for basic life.

Subtraction is not much harder than addition, but a subtraction is intuitively a bad thing while addition is intuitively a good thing.

[Anonymouswizard]

Subtraction is not much harder than addition, but a subtraction is intuitively a bad thing while addition is intuitively a good thing.

What do you mean by 'bad'? Surely it has nothing to do with the ease of calculation? I understand that people might not like subtraction because you end up with a smaller number at the end, but it shouldn't make it harder. It's a skill so useful for normal life (I use it all the time when shopping, I hae £X and what I've bought costs £Y so I can spend up to another £X-£Y, I do this almost subconsciously but still do it), that I'm honestly surprised that there are people without a relevant disability that will insist it's hard. I want to understand why people have an aversion to it, but all I'm getting is 'subtraction is HARD, we can't all be clever clogs', which just makes me more and more confused.

I also understand that people might prefer roll over systems. That's cool, my three favourite games use 1d100+mods; d100 roll under high is good; and roll two d10, subtract lower from higher, add bonuses, and see if higher than difficulty. I have nothing against roll over systems, In fact I love them, but saying roll under is bad because 'subtraction is hard' really annoys me. Convolution is hard, annoying, and I'm still not sure if it applies to anything that isn't a signal. Subtraction is easy, and if you do have difficulty you can use a calculator. Also, there are roll under d% where high is good and that feature no subtraction, off the top of my head both Unknown Armies and Eclipse Phase are like this.

[Ceaon]

What do you mean by 'bad'? Surely it has nothing to do with the ease of calculation?

Indeed it doesn't. It has something to do with the psychological association of more, higher, addition = better.

[MeeposFire]

But, subtraction featuring one or two digits is easy. It is, to put it bluntly, exactly the same as addition, just the other way. It isn't some mystical form of maths people can do, it's almost a nessecary skill for basic life.

Be that as it may but it has been shown that subtraction causes people problems. IN fact they have done studies on it. One theory is that people tend to add things together more and the brain makes itself better at doing so but it is not as far along with subtraction thus making subtraction take more focus.


It also does not help that in addition order does not matter but in subtraction it does. Gives an additional thing to worry about.

Is it too hard? No though considering that you can rewrite subtraction as addition often it is worth considering whether using subtraction gives you any special benefit.

[Menace]

AFAIK Thac0 wasn't removed because it required to substract but because it created needless complexity and there was the deal with lower armor = better, which was different than any other statistic in the game where higher = better.

Designing a game that never requires substraction is hard and might prove needlessly complex. Don't take me wrong, i'm also in for prefering addition instead of substraction because it both feels better and can be easier for people. I just don't think it's enough of a issue to jump through hoops and loops in order to remove any sort of substraction in the game.

[MeeposFire]

AFAIK Thac0 wasn't removed because it required to substract but because it created needless complexity and there was the deal with lower armor = better, which was different than any other statistic in the game where higher = better.

Designing a game that never requires substraction is hard and might prove needlessly complex. Don't take me wrong, i'm also in for prefering addition instead of substraction because it both feels better and can be easier for people. I just don't think it's enough of a issue to jump through hoops and loops in order to remove any sort of substraction in the game.

The "needless complexity" was created by the fact it was based around subtraction. That essentially was the needless complication without that a +1 would not lower your AC by one and the like.

As for whether I would take the time to change an established system I probably would not. The amount of effort of changing something already written for me would take far more effort than doing everybody's subtraction math. However if I was writing a game from scratch I would probably would choose to make my game work in a manner that uses addition as the standard because it is easier for most people to grasp.

[Anonymouswizard]

The "needless complexity" was created by the fact it was based around subtraction. That essentially was the needless complication without that a +1 would not lower your AC by one and the like.

Actually, the 'needless complexity' of core 2e was caused by two things:
-high stats are good, except for THAX0 and AC.
-high rolls are good, except for NWPs.

If the entire system had been 'low is good' or 'roll under' the word complex wouldn't come into it, let alone needlessly.

984552487-126497843 isn't complex, it's just lengthy to do without a calculator.

[TheOOB]

Actually, the 'needless complexity' of core 2e was caused by two things:
-high stats are good, except for THAX0 and AC.
-high rolls are good, except for NWPs.

If the entire system had been 'low is good' or 'roll under' the word complex wouldn't come into it, let alone needlessly.

984552487-126497843 isn't complex, it's just lengthy to do without a calculator.

Really the reason 2e was so complex was because everything use a different system that was designed separately and had nothing to do with each other. But yes, whatever your stance on the high/low roll addition/subtraction debate, a system should strive for consistency, and if the system does something notably different there should be a good reason for it.

[Menace]

The "needless complexity" was created by the fact it was based around subtraction. That essentially was the needless complication without that a +1 would not lower your AC by one and the like.

As for whether I would take the time to change an established system I probably would not. The amount of effort of changing something already written for me would take far more effort than doing everybody's subtraction math. However if I was writing a game from scratch I would probably would choose to make my game work in a manner that uses addition as the standard because it is easier for most people to grasp.

Ad.1 As Anonymouswizard above me stated it wasn't because substraction but because it ran contrary to the rest of the system. You still need to substract in D&D btw (at least 3.5, i'm not familiar with later versions)

Ad.2. Again I'm not arguing that addition shouldn't be the base. I'm saying that going to lenghts to eliminate substraction is not worth it and can result in a system that's actually harder to use and learn. For instance you could devise a system in which bonuses apply to rolls and penalties increase the DC but you get something that's less intuitive and makes you juggle two sets of numbers intead on one.

[Anonymouswizard]

You still need to substract in D&D btw (at least 3.5, i'm not familiar with later versions)

To clarify this, IIRC it was phased out in 4e and 5e so they could end up concentrating all the complexity in 5e in the classes*, letting most subtraction be in calculating your skill modifiers.

I also think that a system sticking to one method of increasing difficulty is a good thing. In something like nWoD or GURPS that's subtracting from the skill, while in most systems I know of it's just increasing the difficulty (I'm totally converting Demon: the Fallen to Scion-era revised Storyteller for this reason). I think we're all arguing for consistency here, the difference is one group wants 'all systems should avoid subtraction' and the other one thinks that subtraction is fine if it is used consistently.

It's like how some people would prefer a to-hit table over a to-hit formula.

* I am not kidding, the classes are so much more complex in 5e than in 3.X. Not that I dislike this, but I still find 2e simpler (and I suspect most people would if THAC0 and AC were ascending).