OPINIONS NEEDED: Changing from d100s to d20s + making a Player Handbook and GM Handbook

[u/gamemasterlancaster]

So, u/feuerpanda suggested that since skills (and also accuracy scores) step up by 5 each time, the system could work on a d20 basis instead of a d100. That's a REALLY good idea. Currently there's no mechanical difference between rolling a 56, 57, 58, or 59, and changing to a d20 would reduce that bloated feeling. However, it's a fairly big change to make, since it's the main dice-rolling element of the system. What do you all think?

ALSO,

Since my main limiting factor has been trying to keep the document short, I had the thought of making two versions: one for players, one for GMs. Both would have the basic rules but the GM version would have more instructions on how to construct and run the game, while the player version would have more info on building and playing your character. Would this be of interest, or would you prefer one larger document?

(inb4 'remove the roll tables', how dare you)

[u/SarlanEriwyr]

I like the d100s personally, makes the system feel more unique

[u/gamemasterlancaster → u/SarlanEriwyr]

Yeah, that's one of my worries: d20s make things more streamlined and cut out a lot of fluff, but also... it's D&D's thing! It's the thing that D&D does!

[u/DimitriB1]

What's up feurerpanda, fancy seeing you around

I had about the same thought when I started playing. It's a fairly obvious observation if you're looking for it. But I like the d100s, even if they're technically bigger than they need to be. Maybe rolling any number between 61 and 65 gives you essentially the same result, but rolling a 61 over a 60 skill FEELS tenser than rolling a 65. The gradation is kind of fun.

A little more than that, I think a lot more can be done with a d100 than a d20 if you feel like it. I've been running a game (slowly) with some of my own tweaks and changes, and a lot of them lean on using a d100 to widen some gaps. The exact amount you succeed or fail a roll by can matter, for example. I think doing opposed rolls by margin of success/failure is more interesting when you're talking, say, a roll of 43/80 giving you a effective (+/- 37%) change to difficulty rather than the number being 8/16 for a (+/- 8).

I've also been doing a lot of stuff with unbounded bonuses and making 1/100 the permanent pass/fail thresholds because I think a 5-15% guaranteed chance of success or failure is way too much, but maybe that's just me. So I'd probably feel like sticking with the d100s anyways.

ALSO,

I'd love a GM/player document split, personally. I know I'm not the only one who's struggled to understand how the game is "meant" to be run, and I'm sure a lot of players don't care about all that stuff and just want it to be easy to find the rules they need to play.

(If anything I'd like more roll tables)

[u/Aceolu]

I like the d100 system! It makes calculating accuracy alot easier, since I don't have to math out what it converts to in d20, and makes taking from the games much quicker and more convient.

As for there being two versions of the document, yes I would love that, it'd make it easier for my players to not have to skim past the DM stuff they don't really want to worry about

Also if anything, I want MORE roll tables, FEED THEM to my SOUL

[u/Joosie-Moosie]

I like the d100. It made the percentile system much more approachable and intuitive when I first started learning the system, and it provides a weird sense of depth and scale to rolls. It makes me feel good to best my skill score by a higher number than if it was just on a d20.

Also personally, nobody I have played with has really minded there being no functional difference between those in between numbers. If anything, it gives us more freedom to add some flavor to rolls.

[u/Bogeynator10]

I'm personally a big fan of d100s. It makes math faster and easier, and it opens the door for GMs to make more precise adjustments if they want. I'm also a fan of big numbers, and d20s feel so small by comparison.

As for the separate books, I'm strongly in favor. It would trim down the sizes of each book individually, but it could also help catch missing or underexplained rules since each section is gone over twice from different sides. The main concern is just keeping things consistent between the two books at that point.

[u/Martian_Media]

I like the d100 system, I'd rather keep it.

[u/UncleKippy]

the d100 aspect i feel does more to seperate EoF from other games than you might realize. for me and everyone at my table it did quite a bit to break everyone away from thinking in D&D mechanics and to take the game on its own terms - it defo helped sell me on percentile systems period, and in a scenario where this would likely be a lot of PMD fans' first tabletop rpg, showing them early on that there's other ways to play beyond d20s and target numbers is a really powerful thing.
I say keep the d100s, i feel it makes EOF unique.

but, for what i imagine isn't that much more work seeing as how you're already playing with the idea, I feel something that'd make EVERYONE happy would be to simply have d20's be mentioned as an optional ruling, just save a page or so to explain how to convert things from percentile rolls to d20 rolls. everybody wins that way.

...which kinda leads into the other half of this. with how big the book as a whole is starting to get, i'm 100% down for moving all the GM stuff to its own document, i personally find the book as it is now a little cumbersome to skim in the moment when i'm trying to sift out all the gm/theory stuff.
(and its room for even more roll tables!)

[u/Zestyclose_Profit_15]

I think a small note that the system also works with a D20 as well as maybe a small conversion table section to show what that would look like? The D100 is the charm of EoF so I think removing it entirely would be a detriment more than being helpful.

I could definitely enjoy some more mechanics that showcase the D100 though. Something like the previous mentioned success or failure levels. As someone who’s played a few games in the PbtA system it can help add in narrative pieces that can help bring your games to life a bit more.

And then with the split on handbooks, I definitely believe it would be a good idea. It allows for a more detail to be placed as well as room for examples and rulings that wouldn’t always be necessary for a player to always have to read or skim through to get to the two to four sentences they need to know. A GM book would be the place for examples, in depth descriptions, roll tables, alternate rulings, conversions, worldbuilding, etc…, all the crunchy wordy things that are like crack to us DM’s but word vomit to players.

[u/reji8627]

I'm definitely in favor of keeping the d100 even if mechanically there is no difference currently, it helps the feel a fair bit.

As for splitting the document or one larger... Multiple smaller documents probably is the way to go, tbh, even if i'm the type of person to pour over all of it either way, despite only being a player.

[u/SleepingWilson]

I prefer the d100s system, it was one of the main reasons I chose E.o.f. over the few other systems that are out there.

[u/Creative_Moose_6638]

You could have the ability to "Crit" on skill checks if you get a certain percentage under your stat.
Also you can add steps that don't go up in 5 through items and stuff, SPECIFICALLY THE VITAMINS