Jump to content

love my bones!


lizardbrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ooh, are you interested in a poker game?

 

^_^

 

Poker is a combination of odds and psychology. Fail to understand either and you're eating Ramen while the other guy eats steak.

 

I don't play poker because I don't get the fine art of bluffing. I play Craps because I have the probability chart for 2d6 memorized. I win at Craps and do ok with poker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because dice rolls are independent (ie have no memory), your argument is moot. chances of rolling a 6+ on a d20 and a 26+ on d100 are identical - 75%.

 

your above example is absolutely flawed. each choice is independent. for bag 1 each draw has a 73% chance of failure and for bag 2 each has a 75% chance of failure. clearly bag 1 is the better choice. the number of pieces of paper is irrelevant, the probability of achieving binary success or failure is.

 

 

you are correct that rolling any *particular* value is less likely with more numbers to chose from but that is not true of a system with a threshold value and binary outcome . what is important is the net probability of success or failure on any particular roll.

 

simple probability:

 

P(event) = number of true outcomes
total number of equally likely outcomes

Edited by vulture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure what this means, but I think you live in a different mathematical universe than I do. :)

 

I give you a chance to win a million dollars you must pull out of 1 of 2 bags presented a winning slip of paper. Bag 1 contains 27 winning slips with 73 losing strips. Bag 2 contains 5 winners 15 losers. You get 20 chances to pull and must put the slip of paper back every time you pull a failure. Which bag do you choose? Most people will choose the bag with the smaller number of slips because the number of total choices is smaller.

Really? Most people are that dumb/unmathmatical? I know most people are not good at statistics (eg: arguing by exception, can't understand what 'on average' means) but I'd never heard of this particular fallacy before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

psyberwolf, you have fallen victim to "the gamblers fallacy" in a way. yes, people have made that mistake before. so much so that there is a term for it.

 

The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely.

 

 

ultimately the probability of success on each roll is what is important. the type of die only serves to modulate the increment by which that probability of success can be changed, nothing more.

Edited by vulture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One of the reasons I will never play 4th, and one of the reason I wouldn't ever choose to play 3.x or Pathfinder any more, is because of the continued reduction in skill options. I LIKE skills. I would like MORE skills. I'm also not a huge fan of a d20 when it comes to skills and would much rather use a system like CoC or the new version of Hacmkaster where skill rolls are all d% based.

 

Unfounded argument. Similar skill sets got consolidated in 4th. They also fixed the min max problem 3.x had with skills. 4th is bad for other reasons and it is not the skills.

 

%d for skills better? I don't have the energy to run through why %d are just bad. Needless to say the only way to get a true percentage is to roll a true d100 which is a ball not a die. Difficult to read and quite possibly the dumbest die ever created. Tell me why do you need that level of granularity? The d20 elegantly handles the granularity one wants from the %d. 27% on 2d10 vs a 16+ on a d20 is nearly the same and on the d20 more likely to produce results closer to 27% than 2d10 can ever produce.

Yay, my first thread-jack on these forums. I'll be telling my grandkids about this moment someday. Also, if this conversation needs to be split and put in a different area of the forum (probably from psyberwolfe1's post that I'm quoting) I think that might be for the best. This thread should be simply about what you plan to use your Bones for, but this d%/skill conversation is an interesting one to me and I'd like to see it through to it's conclusion.

 

So, first thing is first...how is my dislike of the way they consolidated skills in 4th an unfounded argument? The foundation of the argument is...I don't like how they reduced the number of skills. This includes consolidation. I would like to have the opportunity to have a character that is good at hiding but not good at being silent. I would like the possibility of making a character that is good at spotting things, but not so good at hearing things. I'd also just like MORE skills overall. That is the foundation of my argument for not liking the way 4th, Pathfinder, and even 3.x deals with skills. They either don't have enough for my taste, or they have consolidated skills I don't feel are needed.

 

As for the % based skill system, I think I may be missing something about your argument. What do the 27% on the d% and the 16 on a d20 have to do with anything? It seems like you're making the assumption that you have a 27% chance at success at succeeding at a given skill check, and, if so, I have no idea where you're pulling that number from. I'm not going to address this portion of your argument directly, because I don't understand why you chose those numbers.

 

What I will do is explain why I prefer the % skill system over the d20 skill system. But before I do please understand that this is not an indictment of people who like it the other way around. Just because I, and my group, like the % system doesn't mean that it's inherently better. It just means it's a better fit for me and mine. I'm going to use the new edition of Hackmaster as my example game for d%, and 3.x as my example system for the d20 system because they are the ones I'm most familiar with.

 

I like the flexibility and variety it allows from character to character. The d20 system arbitrarily caps your skill based on a given level. If we both make a Rogue, the vast majority of the time we are going to have a lot of overlapping skills that we are equally good at (with some variance based on our stats.) If we both make a Fighter we're almost always going to be equally skilled at almost all of the same skills. In a d% skill system this simply isn't true. For one, there are many more skills to choose from, and there is also not an arbitrary level cap for skills. If I get really lucky on my roll I could have an 85% in, say, survival at first level. I like that I could make ten Fighters and they could all have different skill levels to start with.

 

I also like the flexibility it gives the system in terms of success and failure. The d% system gives the possibility for degrees of success (or degrees of failure). In the d20 system the GM sets a DC and you try to beat that number by rolling a d20 and adding your skill and your modifiers. In the d% system you're looking to roll under your skill. So If I have a 50% in something, I want to roll between 1 and 49. But if the task is an easy one I may be able to roll a 70% and still pass. If I have a 10% in something, I want to roll between 1 and 9, or if it's the same easy task I may be able to roll a 30% and still pass. I have less of a chance at success because of my lower skill, but it's still possible to do it. If I have a 30% in a skill and it's a very difficult check, I need a 10 or lower to pass. If my skill is 50% I need a 30 or lower to pass. Again, it's harder but still possible.

 

I have more to say on the subject, but I'm at work and late for a meeting, so I'll leave it at this for now and revisit a little later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because dice rolls are independent (ie have no memory), your argument is mute. chances of rolling a 6+ on a d20 and a 26+ on d100 are identical - 75%.

 

your above example is absolutely flawed. each choice is independent. for bag 1 each draw has a 73% chance of failure and for bag 2 each has a 75% chance of failure. clearly bag 1 is the better choice. the number of pieces of paper is irrelevant, the probability of achieving binary success or failure is.

 

 

you are correct that rolling any particular value is less likely with more numbers to chose from but that is not important for a binary outcome. what is important is the net probability of success or failure.

 

Yeah last time I planned a game with math you know what happened? Failure. Math fails at first contact with the dice roll. Because that one failed dice roll may be the TPK. Because just like dice don't have memory they also have no meaning to each event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to Revil Fox: The issues you raise have very little to do with the type of dice used for randomization and a great deal to use with the way they are used. You could certainly design a d% system that works effectively the same was as the current d20 system. Similarly, you could design a d20 system that works like the d% system you like. The randomizer in each system gives you a 0-100% chance of success, depending on target numbers and skills, the difference is that the d20 has coarser granularity, so that each change is by 5% rather than 1%. (Note that d% can be set up to use the same granularity; this is exactly what Runequest 2nd Ed. did.)

 

As to which is better? I prefer Hero system, which uses an approximation of a Gaussian distribution (3d6 by design, 3d10 by my modification) and modifies from a base number by difficulty. For example: a common task would have a difficulty of 11- on 3d6, a difficult task 8- on 3d6, and an easy task 14- on 3d6. Combat is handled by comparing skills and using the difference to modify the base 11- die roll.

 

As to why I like it? A Gaussian distribution matches my concept of the way the world works better than a flat distribution, and approximating a Gaussian with d% is fiddly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to Revil Fox: The issues you raise have very little to do with the type of dice used for randomization and a great deal to use with the way they are used. You could certainly design a d% system that works effectively the same was as the current d20 system. Similarly, you could design a d20 system that works like the d% system you like. The randomizer in each system gives you a 0-100% chance of success, depending on target numbers and skills, the difference is that the d20 has coarser granularity, so that each change is by 5% rather than 1%. (Note that d% can be set up to use the same granularity; this is exactly what Runequest 2nd Ed. did.)

This is completely true, and something I was going to bring up in my initial post, but ran out of time. My initial point was that I don't like the 3.x/PFD/4th system for skills and that I much prefer the one used by Hackmaster. While I could build my own skill system using the d20 system to suit my needs, but I don't really like the idea of changing one of the fundamental mechanics of a system, because it's too hard to keep balanced. I much prefer the Armor gives you DR/Makes you easier to hit mechanic to the AC one, but it's not worth changing how d20 combat works to include it. The system wasn't built for that and it honestly doesn't process it very well.

 

I find that the d20 system is a finely built house of cards. It works (if you're into that kind of thing), and you can change the top layer, superficial stuff fairly easy, but if you change anything major you really have to break it down and rebuild more of it than you'd think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

because dice rolls are independent (ie have no memory), your argument is mute. chances of rolling a 6+ on a d20 and a 26+ on d100 are identical - 75%.

 

your above example is absolutely flawed. each choice is independent. for bag 1 each draw has a 73% chance of failure and for bag 2 each has a 75% chance of failure. clearly bag 1 is the better choice. the number of pieces of paper is irrelevant, the probability of achieving binary success or failure is.

 

 

you are correct that rolling any particular value is less likely with more numbers to chose from but that is not important for a binary outcome. what is important is the net probability of success or failure.

 

Yeah last time I planned a game with math you know what happened? Failure. Math fails at first contact with the dice roll. Because that one failed dice roll may be the TPK. Because just like dice don't have memory they also have no meaning to each event.

no shame in that - most people have problems with probabilities. all that being said, though, i'm not a big fan of d100s either. gaming simply isnt that precise, we dont need to mess with single point increases in probabilities when most RPG interactions boil down to "no challenge," "easy," "moderate," "tough," and "impossible" not "hmmm that should be 2% more difficult." there are a few situations where i like them for fluff reasons (robots!).

 

Edit: BTW, the mere fact that you are thinking about the math demonstrates to me that you are not nearly as bad at it as you think. as someone who has taught calc and biostats i have found that the biggest challenge facing people who are "bad at math" is their own willingness to think about math and logic based problems. once they get over that, they find it isnt so hard, just intimidating. so, kudos for making an argument.

Edited by vulture
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...