d% doesn't make any sense to me...

[Neo2151]

Why is "00" + "0" considered a 100? Why isn't it a 10? or a 110?
So it goes:
00+1=1
00+2=2
00+3=3
00+4=4
00+5=5
00+6=6
00+7=7
00+8=8
00+9=9
00+0=100...?

Wait... How did that happen?
Why does the value of 00 change based on the roll?

If 00 always equals zero, and 0 always equals 10, then you get a possible 1-100 result without ever worrying about changing the die values.
But if 00+0 equals 100, then that means the value of 00 changes based on what the d10 shows.

That seems dumb to me.
Anyone else?

[Quasi]

The 00 die represents 10s, the 0-9 die represents units (ones), so on the 00 die 90 = 90, and with a 0 on the unit die, that means ninety exactly, just as 90 + 9 = 99.
The only way to get 100 is to roll 00 and 0. There's no other way, so the general rules do "bend" in this instance. AFter all, no-one ever rolls "zero".

[Scavion]

Because you can't roll zero silly.

[Ilja]

Quasi: thats not true. Neo is right. Many people do d100 as:
D10: 0-9 are considered 0-9
D100: 0-9 are considered 0-90
Exception: 0 and 0 equals 100

But you can also run it this way:
D10: 1-9 equals 1-9, 0 equals 10
D100: 0-9 equals 0-90

That way there is np exception. The drawback being that the d10 0 is never a zero. So instead of switching between a number meaning what it says and meaning something else, the number never means what it says on the dice.

Both are valid methods of generating a random 1-100 number, though i prefer the first method.

[Quasi]

I was assuming that you are using a d10 with 00 to 90 on it, rather than two ordinary d10s 0-9.
Of course, with two ordinary d10s you state what is what before you roll them, so everyone's clear. (different colours helps avoid confusion)

[meatrace]

I think everyone else has this handled, but just to really grind it into the ground 00 isn't the ones column, it's the tens. 1, 00 isn't 100 it's 001. 9, 00 isn't 900 it's 9. 0 (10), 00 is thus 100.

[Ilja]

The thing is that it switches order, thats what neo is getting at.

00+8=8
00+9=9

90+0=90

In every case except 00+0, the value of 00 is 0.
Having the 0-9 dice instead be a 1-10 dice, through treatibg 1 as 10 always, gets rid of the exception:
00+9=9
00+10=10
90+10=100

this is the standard method in a swedish rpg i played some. Didnt personally like the method but if one has a pet peeve against exceptions i guess its nice (though in that case PF might be the wrong game)

[Ilja]

Treating 0 as 10 it should say. Sorrry, typig off phone. Basically treating the 10-sided dice as a regular d10, and using the 00-90 dice as 0-90.

[chaoseffect]

meatrace wrote:

9, 00 isn't 9 it's 90.

I think you got that backward.

[Googleshng]

Think of it like this. You're trying to figure out what a number is. You know it's greater than 0, you know it's less than 101, but you can only see the last two digits.

[meatrace]

The only other way to do it is if you rolled a 90 and a 0 it would be 90+10=100. But that's confusing in itself.

00+0=0, but we're doing percent, which is between 1 and 100, not 0 and 99. Similarly, if I do damage with a bastard sword I expect do do 10 when I roll a 0, no 0 damage. That would SUUUUUUCK.

[Are]

The third method is to use a d10 that has 1-10 on it rather than 0-9 (although rare, I've seen some), along with either a 00-90 die or a 0-9 die used as the 10-digit. That way no conversion will be necessary :)

[Neo2151]

Ilja see's what I'm getting at, at least. lol

So the 0 on a d10 always means "10" ... Except when rolling percentiles. Why change that?

And the 00 on a d% dice is either 10s, or zero. It's not one or the other, it switches based on the roll. That seems unnecessarily confusing.

For 00,8, the 00 is considered a "zero" for a total roll of "8."
But on a roll of 100, the 00 isn't considered a zero anymore. Suddenly it's a 100.

The switch bugs me, when if you do it the other way, the die values never switch.

[Are]

Neo2151 wrote:

So the 0 on a d10 always means "10" ... Except when rolling percentiles. Why change that?

Mainly because, when having 0 mean 0 except when you roll 00 and 0 together, you can just read the die results as they're written for 99 out of 100 possible results. While when counting the 0 as 10, you have to mentally change that 0 to a 10 for 10 out of 100 rolls.

(ie; rolling "90" and "0" instantly looks like a roll of "90", while it takes a little bit of mental work to make it a roll of "100".)

Many people would rather do the mental change only once per 100 rolls rather than 10 times per 100 rolls. Plus, people usually learn percentile-rolling one way (whether method 1 or method 2), and then find it difficult to change the method they're used to.

[Ilja]

Thats a good explanation Are. I leearnt if neos way first but after discovering the standard method i fell in love with it immediately.

0-90+1-10 feels a lot more like rolling two dice rolls and adding them, the standard way feels a lot more like rolling a hundred sided dice that just happe.s to be in a split physical form.

[Neo2151]

Are wrote:

Many people would rather do the mental change only once per 100 rolls rather than 10 times per 100 rolls. Plus, people usually learn percentile-rolling one way (whether method 1 or method 2), and then find it difficult to change the method they're used to.

I just don't see any "mental change" doing it the other way.

A d10 is always 1-10. A d% is always 0-90 in a value of "tens."
Sure, it's like adding them together, but so is the other way really. It's not "100 plus 0, except when it's not 100 or when it's not 0."

[Thymus Vulgaris]

We agree that 00+0 looks like we rolled a 0, right?
And you know how in cardgames the Ace is the lowest card? Well, sometimes the Ace is the highest, above the king. In percentile rolls, that zero is the highest roll, above 99. That is 100.

One could also say that for the percentiles the 0 die is always 0, and the 00 die is always 100. But you can't really roll over 100, so when you roll 105, that's just a 5. But that way there are 9 exceptions rather than just 1.

I prefer the explanation where 00+0 is the Ace of the die rolls. I'd rather look at 70+0 and simply read that straight forward as 70 than have it be 80, because I find it much more convenient to immediately know from the first die which row of tens my result is in.

[Are]

Let me just preface this post by saying that everybody should use the method they prefer :)

I'll try to explain the appeal of, let's call it "Method A" (ie; 00-0 = 100), a little better.

In Method A, apart from the one single instance of 00-0, one die always produces the first digit of the number, and the other die always produces the second digit of the number. It doesn't become like addition as such, because the numbers on the two dice directly correspond to the number you get. Rolling 40-0, 40-1, 40-2 etc produces 40, 41, 42.

While in Method B, the first die only produces the first digit of the number if the second die isn't 0. If it is 0, then the first digit is increased by 1. Rolling 40-1, 40-2 etc is still the same, but when rolling 40-0, the result is 50.

Anyway, if you only roll percentile dice once per session or so on average, it probably doesn't matter which method you use. But I've been in sessions where, at the evening wrap-up, several dragon hoards were determined through rolling on percentile-based treasure tables, and in that case I think even subconscious changing of "4"'s to "5"'s would have become confusing after a while :)

[BillyGoat]

As with Are above, use whatever method works for you (I'm still looking for a real nice d100, myself).

However, it's above all else about consistency.

a d10, we represent with a die with (typically) faces 0 - 9.

a d% (or, d100 as two dice) is represented with a die (two dice) with faces 0 - 99.

The method 0 + 00 = 100 is actually more in keeping with the overall theme we see in the game.

When you see a min outside the accepted range of the roll (0, or 00+0), you translate to max (10 or 100).

This keeps the scheme of all dice consistent, rather than the scheme of the d10 consistent.

It's easier for more people to translate "zeros are maximum on a die roll" than "zeros on a d10 are maximum on a d10, so when pairing a d10 with a d00 to make a d%, any time I see a zero on the d10, add 10 to the result of the d00, but the 00 means zero".

The first is insanely simpler than the later, and translates across the overwhelming majority of game systems (0=max shows up in WoD, Savage Worlds, etc. d% 00+0 shows up in the Warhammer 40k line of games, at a minimum). The only game I know that avoids this convention is Eclipse Phase, and they do so by embracing 00-99 as the possible outcomes.

Not to mention, it also keeps the mental exercises down for a player using 2d10 (say, green for 10's and white for 1's) to represent d%. Now the rule has to remind people that the 0 is only 10 on a d10 when that d10 isn't standing duty for a d%.

[Laithoron]

Assuming your d% goes from 00 to 90 and your d10 goes from 1-10 (and not 0-9), you can always just add the results together. While this may go against the mindset of the d% determining the 10's place, it does work out to a scale of 1-100 instead of 0-99...

00+1 = 1
00+10 = 10
10+10 = 20
90+10 = 100

[BillyGoat]

Laithoron wrote:

Assuming your d% goes from 00 to 90 and your d10 goes from 1-10 (and not 0-9), you can always just add the results together. While this may go against the mindset of the d% determining the 10's place, it does work out to a scale of 1-100 instead of 0-99...

00+1 = 1
00+10 = 10
10+10 = 20
90+10 = 100

I don't think anyone's confused that this approach can work to generate 1 - 100.

What seems to be the main point of contention is simply whether that approach is any more intuitive, or useful, than the 00+0=100 convention.

The arguments for 90+0=100 appear to be "d10 is always 10" and "00+9=09, 00+0=100, 10+0=10 ... WTF?"

Whereas the arguments for 00+0 appear to be "lowest roll on a 0-X die (be it 0 or 00+0) is max" and "if 00+0=100, then d% can just be read in all but one instance, translated in another instead of translated & added in ten".

At the end of the day, I think everyone agrees you should run with whatever works for you (and is understood by your table in advance).

[Neo2151]

I agree with the whole "use what's best for you," in theory.
In actual practice, I understand my position is in the minority - meaning me and 99% of my GMs don't see eye to eye on it, which means I never get to "use what's best for me." ;)

[Redneckdevil]

Think of a clock. The lastest time is 12:00 and the earliest time is 12:01.
Think of the numbers of the die going in a circle just like the hands on a clock goes.

[Laithoron]

Agreed, Billy Goat, I was simply responding to the OP before diving into the rest of the thread. Anyway, the reason I prefer using a d% and a regular d10 and adding them is there are fewer WTF moments. When you roll the d%, you always know that your result is at least that amount and you don't suddenly have an expected low-roll turning into a chart-topper.

Additionally, when it comes to the practical applications of d100 rolls (chiefly treasure tables and miss chances), I find it more expedient.

Example: Miss Chance wrote:

Scenario: We need to roll a 20% miss chance.

Givens:

The d100 dice are composed of a d% (00-90) and a standard d10 (1-10).

The GM and group have decided that the results of the two dice will be added at face value: a d% of 00 = 0, a d10 result of 10 = 10.

This is Pathfinder, so high rolls lead to successes, low rolls to failures.

This is Pathfinder, so when resolving directly-targeted attacks it is the attacker who rolls to beat a set defensive value (as compared to systems or exceptions where defenders make rolls to dodge or parry)). This means that the attacker should roll the miss chance, and they should endeavor to roll high.

So, with a miss chance of 20%, the player goes to roll d100 using their two dice and the GM knows that they only need to look at the result of the d%.

Why?

Because the minimal result on the d10 is a 1 and not a 0. Thus the minimal d100 sum for a d% result of 20 is 21 which beats the target value of 20. Likewise, a d% result of 00 or 10 is always a failure because the maximal result of the d10 cannot result in a sum that beats that target value.

Similarly, with treasure tables, I can tell just by the d% whether I should be looking at the start or end of the table rather than potentially having to skip between the start or end.

Long story short, I find adding at face value faster and more consistent because the d% always indicates a contiguous range rather than having conditional values associated with it (as per the example of the Ace card).

IMO consistency and expediency are the deciding factors when it comes to keeping the game humming along.

[BillyGoat]

It may be the result of always running it this way, but I've had no WTF moments using the method of 00+0=100.

I think my players would have a harder time if they always have to add, rather than knowing that a result of 20+X was in the range of 20 - 29.

For me, this is more "WTF" than 00+0=100:

00+9=09
00+0=10
10+1=11
10+2=12
...
10+9=19
10+0=20
20+1=21

I have to loop over ten times, instead of once.

Either system, you can read the dice as thrown, with one or more exceptions. Your method has ten exceptions, standard convention has one.

For you, the ten exceptions works out because it means that you're always "more than" what's shown on the d%, which allows drawing conclusions quicker in certain cases.

However, I think most people like the idea of "what you see is what you get". In that case, fewer exceptions is always optimal.

[Laithoron]

BillyGoat wrote:

For you, the ten exceptions works out because it means that you're always "more than" what's shown on the d%, which allows drawing conclusions quicker in certain cases.

From my perspective, there are no exceptions with my method — you are taking the numbers at face-value. Also, it's not a matter of "certain cases" but rather the only case. At the tables I've sat at or run, the only time percentile rolls are ever made by-hand during play are for miss chances. In that respect, it is objectively faster to roll a single die, no math involved and have your results.

In essence, the math is "there", pre-packaged with no effort needed by the players. For those who are curious as to the hows and whys, there's always the wiki page that breaks it down, but in terms of practical applications it's just not necessary to roll that second d10 and add the results like with the "tens places, ones places" model.

Just out of curiosity, other than treasure generation (which I handle in-advance or via fiat), what other at-the-table use cases am I missing for percentile rolls that would make your method faster?

[Rub-Eta]

My d10 goes from 0 to 9, but I treat the 0 as 10 (when you roll for 1d10 dmg you can't roll a 0, else, doing 1d8 dmg would be so much better).

Rolling 00,1 is thus the lowest(1) and 90,0 is highest(100)=90+10

00,0 is 10 -- 10,0 is 20 -- 10,1 is 11 -- etc.

I do this since in Pathfinder d% is 1-100 and not 0-99.

I blame my dice, not the d% (Other sets of dice have d10's with 1-10).

[The Terrible Zodin]

Here's how I do it:

when rolling 2d10 [or d(1-10 twice)] I think of it as the last 2 digits of a number

so I get
0&9=09
1&0=10
0&0=(1)00

when rolling %dice [ or d(1-10) and d(00-90)] I mentally add the values

so I get

00+9=9
10+(1)0=20
90+(1)0=100

What I have found interesting is that ten sided dice *never* have a 10 on them.

[BillyGoat]

Laithoron wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

For you, the ten exceptions works out because it means that you're always "more than" what's shown on the d%, which allows drawing conclusions quicker in certain cases.

From my perspective, there are no exceptions with my method — you are taking the numbers at face-value. Also, it's not a matter of "certain cases" but rather the only case. At the tables I've sat at or run, the only time percentile rolls are ever made by-hand during play are for miss chances. In that respect, it is objectively faster to roll a single die, no math involved and have your results.

In essence, the math is "there", pre-packaged with no effort needed by the players. For those who are curious as to the hows and whys, there's always the wiki page that breaks it down, but in terms of practical applications it's just not necessary to roll that second d10 and add the results like with the "tens places, ones places" model.

What I mean by "certain cases" isn't "all miss chance rolls" it's "miss chance rolls where the % chance to miss and the result on the d% are the same".

That's the only time there's an advantage to your methodology on miss chances.

Laithoron wrote:

Just out of curiosity, other than treasure generation (which I handle in-advance or via fiat), what other at-the-table use cases am I missing for percentile rolls that would make your method faster?

% chance an item is available in town. Given that this is a 75% chance, you're back to rolling both d% dice.

Random weather, if you go for that sort of thing. I'll definitely grant that the random weather table could easily fit your schema better than the normal (since they use ranges from X1-(X+1)0 for each weather event).

And, really, if we're looking for efficiency, take 10 minutes of downtime to convert the %chance to a d20 DC. 20% = ~DC 5, 50% = DC 11, invert the %chance on purchases to be ~DC 4 (to keep with bigger result = better).

I'll leave the weather to anyone interested in it. I'm sticking to d%.

Edit: I did forget to include Reincarnate as an option. But, to be fair, that probably sees less use than random weather.

[BillyGoat]

The Terrible Zodin wrote:

What I have found interesting is that ten sided dice *never* have a 10 on them.

Off-topic, but I give you 10-sided dice with a 10 on them.

[Weren Wu Jen]

The old "Top Secret" game used d% for task resolution, and they had "00" = Zero (so it was 0-99).

[Laithoron]

BillyGoat wrote:

What I mean by "certain cases" isn't "all miss chance rolls" it's "miss chance rolls where the % chance to miss and the result on the d% are the same".

That's the only time there's an advantage to your methodology on miss chances.

Maybe I just don't have sufficiently creative players, but I don't think I've ever seen a miss chance that isn't evenly divisible by 10...

BillyGoat wrote:

% chance an item is available in town. Given that this is a 75% chance, you're back to rolling both d% dice.

Well yes, if the granularity is finer than 10% increments then that should be obvious. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

BillyGoat wrote:

Random weather, if you go for that sort of thing. I'll definitely grant that the random weather table could easily fit your schema better than the normal (since they use ranges from X1-(X+1)0 for each weather event).

The only weather charts I can recall consulting in the past few years were from the Serpent's Skull AP. I think they were d20-based, but I could be wrong. In any event, treasure, weather, scrying, reincarnation, disjunction, and teleport errors all strike me as events for which the pace of gameplay has to shift gears anyway, unlike with combat scenarios (which is what I had in mind when I mentioned "keeping the game humming along").

Mind you, I will concede that most d10s have a "0" printed on them instead of a "10", but considering that during the normal course of play they are always counted as "10" (i.e. damage) I'd say the point about face value and consistency stands. And honestly, it's the issue of consistency/fairness that trumps the other concerns so if a particular way works well for a group then more power to 'em.

[BillyGoat]

Laithoron wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

What I mean by "certain cases" isn't "all miss chance rolls" it's "miss chance rolls where the % chance to miss and the result on the d% are the same".

That's the only time there's an advantage to your methodology on miss chances.

Maybe I just don't have sufficiently creative players, but I don't think I've ever seen a miss chance that isn't evenly divisible by 10...

I may not have been sufficiently clear on this one.

I'm not arguing that the miss chance changes (20% or 50%, depending on concealment/total concealment).

I'm saying that unless you roll a 20 on the d% (or a 50, in the case of total concealment), your methodology offers no advantage for miss chances.

Really, I think we've beaten this horse pretty dead. Both methods work, some people find one more intuitive than the other. Folks ought to run with what works for the majority of people at your table.

To sum-up, the advantages seem to be:

d00 is 10's position, d10 is single digit, 00+0=100
- Can read the dice exactly as they land, with one exception.

d00 is 00-90, d10 is 1-10, 00+0=10, 90+0=100
- Can roll only the d00 to determine miss chance (single most common method).
- Is consistent with other uses of a d10 (1-10 range).

The disadvantages of either are more ambiguous and, frankly, require anyone looking at this post read through the whole thread. YMMV.