I often read reviews on D100 RPG’s, partly because I may be interested in buying them, sometimes because I have them and I am interested in someone else’s point of view and sometimes, just becasue I like them.

The term “retro” tends to come up a lot and it makes me bristle. It should not, but from a D100 fans perspective, thsi terminology, possibly a deterent to others, is both redundant and misleading.

The reasons for this calling out a difference between a modern and retro RPG system eludes me.

You sit arounfd a table with friends, play the roles of some made up characters, and roll dice (or occassionally play some cards) to resolve the effects of your and other characters’ actions. Conceptually, no RPG strays from this paradigm, even if the actual mechanic changes slightly;

Player intent > character action > random element > effect > interpret for story.

There are variations that change player role, remove the GM even, but at the end of the day, that is it.

So, why is a D100 system considered “retro” or old fashioned?

If it comes to the “bones” themselves, D6’s and the like mostly pre-date d10’s, and “The Worlds First/Favourite RPG” uses all available die including d100’s, so mechanically D100 systems are as relevant as any. I guess it may be a “stigma” attached to it’s lineage. So why does “TWFRPG” not get the same treatment when it is (1) older, (2) more dated and abstract in mechanics and concept and (3) less consistant over time, just to end up close to where it started?

Traveller, one of the original “genesis” games uses 2d6 (with some mid 90’s exceptions) and many “new” style games have simply moved to a dice “pool” style to soften the curve a little, but other than that die are die, so again “retro” or not is not about the tools used. For these games, a small change to process like advantage die seems to be earth shattering enough for most, so why can’t the same be said for a more stable mechanic when something similar happens.

If not the die, as assumed by the title of the post, them maybe the mechanics themselves?

Fair play, there are older and newer systemic evolutions or in some cases de-volutions involved. Keep in mind though, the negative comments made by some reviewers are a direct result of the systems’ over arching robustness, something that other systems, TWFRPG in particular have never been able to achieve. D100 systems work, make sense and are more grounded than many others and that is a bullet proof fact. Teaching d100 games is as simple as a game can be and then the concepts can be transferred to other similar games, periods and feels.

Something I really appreciate about them is the “invisibleness” of the system. Once understood, the actual role playing can be gotten on with, the system just moves out of the way. On a personal note, overly mechanical or systemic games tend to put me off. Role playing is a simple task, made harder by games that try to own the space in the name of story telling support or proxy. The One Ring is a good example of a game that forces processes on the GM and players to make them game Tolkein as it should, in their opinion, be played. If you want to play it true to theme, then play it that way, if not make it your game. Converting the game to d100 or another format means nothing unless you want it to.

The latest Runequest for example has revived not only the ancient games’ thematic feel, but also some of its mechanical clumsiness. The resistance table is a relic, but it is also part of the heritage of the game system, so forgiveable. It also works fine and fixes a few problems, but there are newer ways to achieve the same.

The things that for me mechanically separate “retro” d100 games from new ones are;

• Critical results on doubles (good and bad), giving a more logical spread of a 10% chance of extraordinary results, tied to skill level not just set at fixed values.

• Die arrangement, which can reduce or remove the need for hard mod levels, which in turn can lead to imbalance in chance spread. A +20% mod to a 10% skilled character is proportionately enormous compared to a 70% skilled character.

• “Failing forward” or a similar mechanic to soften the hard pass/fail dynamic, which D100 games with their linear non-curve are known for. Good role playing aside, this is a reality of most games. Some fixes have been too complicated (Warhammer 4e), but there are simpler ones such as halving or doubling hard pass/fails, the grey area used as pass/fail results “with complications”. At some point all systems have to make a stand here, D100 systems are not exceptions.

• Limiting character growth towards the top end, sometimes capping skills at 99%.

• Add a meta currency. This means no means yep, ok you spend a “x” and get a “get out of jail” pass. This ties in directly to new games as a true call out to player control.

Some of these are simply logical evolutions, some are there to remove partly erroneous interpretations. The linnear nature of d100 rolling is something I have been aware of since day one, but when you look at it, the “curve” some die systems use is actually an irrelevance.

2d6 rolls have 36 result combinations, 6 of which result in a 7 and only 1 each for 2 and 12 . This curve gives the player a feelng of a semi predictable average, which only actually makes any difference to a 50% chance on d100’s when applying mods. In curve based games, mods have a massive effect. A mod of +1 in a 2d6 system shifts the entire curve one digit to the right and it is only 11 number wide. 8 is now the average, 3 and 13 the extremes. In a d100 game +5% is a flat +5%. More importantly, +1% is not irrelevant, just very granular.

Don’t get me started on the d20 vs d100 argument. The d20 is simply a d100 limited to 5% levels. The actual difference in mechanics is a “roll over” rather than “roll under” system base, although there are exceptions to both. The psychological effect of roll over systems, where all good things are plusses is genuine and the open ended-ness of that system is seen as a good thing, but it also leads to impossible odds for some tests. The flat 5% auto fail/crit of d20 games is identical to the 10% crit range of modern d100 games, but less flexible and far less representative of true skill. A skill level of 70% has 6 chances of a good critical, 4 of a bad one and even that can be granular with the very extremes being “soft” crits, the middle values, where skill makes a real difference, is where the “hard” crits hide.

Personally, I have come to prefer the high % percentage = good over high mods added to a die roll = good, feel.

Ok, so after lookng at the percieved bad sides of d100, lets look at the positives.

D100 games are very granular, but in a simple, logical way. No other game system can offer an easy to interpret system with 100+ range of results. 3D6 has more, but needs simple arithmetic and again has the curve effect with mods (and often uses roll under) and some pool based games are just clumsy or overly “flat”.

The only time a d100 game becomes cumbersome is when a roll over system is used, requiring mod to be added to large numbers like Role Master (Harn), or a system that allows skill levels of over 100, with mods applied then another variant like die arrangement. This is still logcal to explain and interpret, just loess clean in process.

Alternatives in “modern” games can offer up monsters like the Star Wars dice pool system where you have not only a lot of bespoke die to interpret, but then have to interprtet their meanings in relation to each other. This is a mechanical replacement for role playing and although cool in concept, does not actually add anything new.