Jump to content

love my bones!


lizardbrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!).

 

You missed my point. Math is a lousy way to plan a game. Because probability is about chances not when a certain roll will occur. As I say to my friends who plan the wargames with surgical mathematical planning, "Live by math die by math." The problem with probability planning is the meaning of the roll is meaningless to the die so over the course of a game session I roll a tremendous number of dice and if I were to record all results chances are good that the numbers would be near average. But when I get that 20 on a d20 might be good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You missed my point. Math is a lousy way to plan a game. Because probability is about chances not when a certain roll will occur. As I say to my friends who plan the wargames with surgical mathematical planning, "Live by math die by math." The problem with probability planning is the meaning of the roll is meaningless to the die so over the course of a game session I roll a tremendous number of dice and if I were to record all results chances are good that the numbers would be near average. But when I get that 20 on a d20 might be good or bad.

Games involving die rolling are inherently statistical in nature. Without math, how can you plan for such games? In an RPG, the DM might ignore the die so you may have some more freedom, but in a 1-vs-1 wargame I don't see that happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so in your opinion Math is not the way to plan... what is a good way to plan then? With a probability based planning system I can focus my support on places where I'm more likely to fail to improve my overall odds of success give an individual failure, without some probabilistic analysis of what is most likely to have a problem I'd have to spread my support thin across the entire board, likely not giving me enough strength where something does fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed my point. Math is a lousy way to plan a game. Because probability is about chances not when a certain roll will occur. As I say to my friends who plan the wargames with surgical mathematical planning, "Live by math die by math." The problem with probability planning is the meaning of the roll is meaningless to the die so over the course of a game session I roll a tremendous number of dice and if I were to record all results chances are good that the numbers would be near average. But when I get that 20 on a d20 might be good or bad.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by using math to "plan a game".

 

If you're talking game design, you need to understand the math so that the result structure ends up the way you want. You can often figure out that a game was designed by someone who doesn't understand probability theory simply by the way that it breaks down in odd situations.

 

If you're talking about game play, you need to understand the math so that you can assess risks and opportunities effectively and plan to mitigate the one and take advantage of the other using the appropriate amount of effort (whatever that might mean in game). Does this mean that every risk will be neutralized and every opportunity will be a success? Of course not.

 

But there's a reason that game theory is a core branch of mathematics: it has extensive real world applicability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

because dice rolls are independent (ie have no memory), your argument is mute.

 

Sorry, but this is bothering me. His argument is moot. Not mute.

sorry for the typo/autocorrect, i guess :rock:. i am aware of the difference, but i am typing during brief periods of down time i have at work.

 

edit: fixed, for your viewing pleasure.

Edited by vulture
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.

And that remains true whether the die is % or d20. No one can argue with your dislike of randomness, but we can easily argue with your insistence that d% and d20 behave differently in practice, because that is fundamentally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not randomness it's the sample set is so small that d100 is too granular. Furthermore unless you have 100 distinct choices or have a specific way you want to weight results, d100 is really a poor way to resolve a mechanic like thief skills in AD&D. I hate the d100 as a %d system. It's bad. Rolling a 25% on %d and 5- or 16+ is the same thing but 30+ years of experience in rolling dice tells me bet against the d100 but be careful betting against the d20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I agree that the d100 or d% is unnecessarily granular: I don't need to adjust by 1%, increments of 5% is plenty. But I just can't figure out what you are trying to argue with that last sentence. Are you claiming that you are actually more likely to fail your roll on a d% than on a d20, or just that it feels that way, or...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not randomness it's the sample set is so small that d100 is too granular. Furthermore unless you have 100 distinct choices or have a specific way you want to weight results, d100 is really a poor way to resolve a mechanic like thief skills in AD&D. I hate the d100 as a %d system. It's bad. Rolling a 25% on %d and 5- or 16+ is the same thing but 30+ years of experience in rolling dice tells me bet against the d100 but be careful betting against the d20.

I'm still confused about this 25% thing. Why are we assuming that 25% is the number that we're looking for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to tell you this psyberwolfe1 but you are confusing the psychology of the experience of rolling the dice with the math of rolling the dice. Your experience is perfectly valid but it doesn't change the truth of the math around the dice.

 

I don't particularly like rolling d% either, but its got nothing to do with the math of the dice and everything to do with bad experiences derived from the mechanics of the systems interacting with the dice reducing predictability and making each roll too random in its outcome. That's still not the dice's fault.

 

If I engineered a system with a base 55% chance of success and applied bonuses and penalties in 5% increments it would be the same math as 4E. The difference would be psychological because of the 2 dice; you get the value you want on the unit dice and then a fraction of a second later the other tens dice rolls over and you suddenly go from partial success to failure. This increases the negative psychological impact of failure, but the actual math was never affected.

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...