Quote from: Anon Adderlan;644647And the dice decide that? Cause that's what the original comment is in reference to.

It can, but that's not my perference in game design.

My taste is for the game system to determine the former (i.e. means by which the bullet is placed on target), and for other layers of the game to determine Fog of War (it might help to read Layers of Design on my blog link below).



About the dice, since you called those out directly I may as well mention how I view them as well because they're a bit different while being closely related related.

The role of the dice is to account for everything that isn't explicitly modeled mechanically.

Taking the sniper shot for example, the mechanics may explictly list many of the factors including range, quality of weapon, user skill, difficulty of target, cover, etc. Being a game it will do so to some degree of abstraction. Some factors may not be covered at all. The dice fill in the gap and account for those things not explictly modeled- and for the abstraction within the model.

The combination of explict mechanics + dice determines the entirely of in-game reality.

Quote from: gleichman;644661The combination of explict mechanics + dice determines the entirely of in-game reality.

Yes, but do you agree that dice are a failure of Simulation of Process? They're a black box which accounts for everything which either isn't, or can't, be accounted for, which means the process cannot be proven to be 'truthful'.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645144Yes, but do you agree that dice are a failure of Simulation of Process? They're a black box which accounts for everything which either isn't, or can't, be accounted for, which means the process cannot be proven to be 'truthful'.

No, and for a simple reason. As they reveal nothing of the process- they can't lie about it.

They can be a failure of Simulation of Outcome.

Amusing.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645144Yes, but do you agree that dice are a failure of Simulation of Process? They're a black box which accounts for everything which either isn't, or can't, be accounted for, which means the process cannot be proven to be 'truthful'.

This seems like nitpicking to me. If the aim is to produce a system that models reality as well as possible without conflicting with other design goals, and you have a system that accounts in detail for all these major factors he is listing, but you let the dice account for the unknowable or unmodeled variables, to me that seems to align  well with gleichman's description of process simulation. Certainly much better than any alternatives I can think of. I would file this under close enough. the criticism here doesnt seem a good enough reason for him to abandon the idea entirely.

If a skilled person fires a gun at a target one thousand times int he same exact conditions there will be differences in where he strikes. some might hit exactly where he wants, others may not quite be where he was aiming for and so on. I dont think it is entirely clear where the inconsistency comes from and how to model it (it would be everything from slight changes in mood, to changes in the body, less heightened focus, random thoughts, etc). Leaving that to the dice makes complete sense and does a fairly solid job modeling the action if the system around it is well thought out.

As I understand it a single dice roll could be failed simulation of process, but it isn't necessarily; its just a black box.
I've tried thinking about what rolls *are* most likely to fail simulation of process. So far, most likely circumstances where a roll could fail it would be if:

*bonuses/penalties to the roll aren't in line with the expected result. (D&D armour).

*if a roll can be skipped under some circumstances, so that modifiers to the roll aren't accounted for in outcomes in other circumstances (armour vs. pits of spikes).

*a roll could itself be a breakdown in the process since it can represent a random factor which doesn't exist. For instance, World of Darkness "soak" rolls use a Stamina roll to represent how tough characters are, but the random factor is unclear. (In general Soak is just an abstraction where a minor injury isn't being tracked on a tough dude, but a character can also fail their roll, e.g.  Arnie will inexplicably be treated as Rick Moranis for the purpose of this attack,  separate to whether the damage roll itself was good or bad).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645390*bonuses/penalties to the roll aren't in line with the expected result. (D&D armour).

*if a roll can be skipped under some circumstances, so that modifiers to the roll aren't accounted for in outcomes in other circumstances (armour vs. pits of spikes).

I wouldn't blame the dice here, but rather the inputs to the dice. You roll 'To Hit' but the inputs have nothing to do with hitting (D&D AC) for example.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645390*a roll could itself be a breakdown in the process since it can represent a random factor which doesn't exist. For instance, World of Darkness "soak" rolls use a Stamina roll to represent how tough characters are, but the random factor is unclear. (In general Soak is just an abstraction where a minor injury isn't being tracked on a tough dude, but a character can also fail their roll, e.g.  Arnie will inexplicably be treated as Rick Moranis for the purpose of this attack,  separate to whether the damage roll itself was good or bad).

I'm not a fan of the soak roll (mechanically I think armor or an armor like resistance should handle things well enough), and not familar enough with WoD to say why it's there...

Looking at it from a distance, it appears to represent a paranormal ability to ignore damage. You're right that the reason does seem unclear, it would seem you could always absorb damage- why is it random?

Quote from: gleichman;645393I wouldn't blame the dice here, but rather the inputs to the dice. You roll 'To Hit' but the inputs have nothing to do with hitting (D&D AC) for example.

Yup.

QuoteI'm not a fan of the soak roll (mechanically I think armor or an armor like resistance should handle things well enough), and not familar enough with WoD to say why it's there...

Looking at it from a distance, it appears to represent a paranormal ability to ignore damage. You're right that the reason does seem unclear, it would seem you could always absorb damage- why is it random?

original World of Darkness (i.e. Vampire: the Masquerade) combat process looks like this, IIRC:

-roll initiative (dice pool equals Wits + Alertness).
-roll to hit i.e. for an unarmed attack something like [Strength+Brawl], or for a weapon [Dex+Melee], d10 dice pool.
-target can elect to dodge, rolling [Dex+Dodge skill]
-roll damage. This depends on weapon, for something like a fist its [Str] while for a weapon its [Str+x bonus dice e.g. Str+2 for a sword]. Extra successes to hit (more than 1 by default, or over the defender's Dodge successes) convert to bonus damage dice and are rolled.
-target rolls soak; their Stamina is the dice pool. Armour can also add here, and is rolled also. Certain powers (Fortitude) can add automatic soak successes; some form of damage ('Aggravated damage', such as fire against vampires or silver against werewolves) don't get the base Stamina soak, although armour works; mortals don't get the Stamina roll any sort of 'lethal' damage, such as from swords.
-Each Soak success reduces damage by 1. Final damage is applied to move the character down the wound track at 1 step per success, with every character having the same wound track (Bruised, Hurt, Injured, Wounded, Mauled, Crippled, Incapacited, Dead; most rolls suffer a -1 at Hurt/Injured, -2 at Wounded/Mauled, or -5 at Crippled). Some monsters may have different wound tracks [e.g. more wound levels], and PCs with the Huge merit (7' tall/300 lbs) gain an extra 'Bruised' health level.

Anyway, I was mostly complaining about the Stamina roll not representing anything in particular. As far as it being supernatural, only supernatural creatures such as vampires get their Stamina dice against 'lethal' damage such as swords, though mortals get soak rolls vs. bashing damage like being punched; I guess I did forget about that aspect when complaining (its Vampire Arnie vs. Vampire Rick Moranis, then).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645407Anyway, I was mostly complaining about the Stamina roll not representing anything in particular.

It looks like what they were looking for was a wider range of damage than you'd get with a single damage roll and then just subtracting a fixed armor (+Stamina) value.

I can't say that I like the concept (especially adding Stamina in there) and I think their are better options. You can see mine when the book arrives (assuming you don't hurl it into the flames after cracking it open).

Quote from: gleichman;645434It looks like what they were looking for was a wider range of damage than you'd get with a single damage roll and then just subtracting a fixed armor (+Stamina) value.

My theory is that the dice roll are used there because counting the successes is an easy way to get say 40% of the stat or so - their scale is quite granular, but having stamina subtract directly would be too much, particularly given that Strength is being rolled (hence scaled down). So its a roll as a shortcut instead of having to do math, but where there's no real variable being represented.

Might be process complications elsewhere with poisons and the like (i.e. if 0 damage can still represent a slight nick, its unclear whether a successful damage roll would be needed to get injected poison in, I guess. Been a long time since I've played it, and never that much, so not sure exactly how that would work).

QuoteI can't say that I like the concept (especially adding Stamina in there) and I think their are better options. You can see mine when the book arrives (assuming you don't hurl it into the flames after cracking it open).

haha we shall see...the only book ever in any real danger of that over here was the 4th Ed. D&D PHB, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645439Might be process complications elsewhere with poisons and the like (i.e. if 0 damage can still represent a slight nick, its unclear whether a successful damage roll would be needed to get injected poison in, I guess. Been a long time since I've played it, and never that much, so not sure exactly how that would work).

One would need to know the details. For humans it's basically variable armor and PD (in HERO terms) and while the concept is odd I'd don't know if it's wrong as much as it's a waste to make another roll unless you gain something from it. What you gain here isn't clear.

I'd rather use that roll for active defense myself as that represents a visible event in the battle...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645439haha we shall see...the only book ever in any real danger of that over here was the 4th Ed. D&D PHB, though.

Bars can always be lowered

I think I got it now.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;645317This seems like nitpicking to me.

Of course I'm nitpicking. It's A Gleichman thread.

Quote from: gleichman;642665But is it a failure in Simulation of Process?

I'd say no, for cause and effect remain intact, only the order of  events is brought into question.

OK, but do dice ever conceal this order?

Quote from: gleichman;642665The abstraction of the dice prevent us from knowing the actual causes for the reasons above. The abstraction of the turn sequence prevents us from knowing the actual order.

So no, only the causes, NOT the sequence.

But what if the cause is dependent on the sequence? How meaningfully can the two concepts be separated? What about systems which treat the skill result as initiative?

Quote from: gleichman;642665And not knowing, we can't tell if the system lied. Thus we can't know if it failed Simulation of Process

+

Quote from: gleichman;642680It's not enough to be unable to prove that the system lied, it's enough to know that it may well have.

And with that I think I'm up to speed.

Quote from: gleichman;645393You roll 'To Hit' but the inputs have nothing to do with hitting (D&D AC) for example.

Well, no. In D&D, AC represents a character's ability to avoid getting hit. this includes both armour deflecting blows, last minute reactions and twists and turns of the body, as well as parries and blocks. Its an abstraction, but a pretty clear one that may as well have been called "defense".

So in D&d an attack ('to-hit') is modified by the opponent's ability to defend themselves (AC). This is why armour isnt the only thing that contributes to AC.

Well, basically D&D is a variation on Chainmail.

In the ancestor, figures are simply dead or alive. Even in the case of fantastic figures still vulnerable to normal troops, it's a matter of scoring so many hits in a single turn (not cumulatively over two or more turns).

(IIRC, there are some special cases in which the text could be read as introducing cumulative hits, but is ambiguous.)

In D&D, each "man-life" was translated into a dice of points, allowing finer resolution and more scope for a cumulative tally. (This ignored the actual ratio that made a Hero worth 40 men in Chainmail, or 80 with larger scales of model.)

This was to some degree suited to representing other hazards of dungeon exploration besides combat.

The original ACs were quite literally eight classes of armor panoply. Even though (in D&D, but not in Chainmail) the hit chances thereby derived followed a simple progression, other modifiers were explicitly to the dice roll rather than to AC.

Note that in the original D&D set, as in Chainmail, the frequency of a hit -- which was basically a kill -- was usually the sole reflection of offensive capabilities. Except for a select few monsters, there was no variation in damage dice by weaponry.

Hit Dice alone more generally subsumed various factors. What a fighting-man type character got for a high Strength score was not a damage bonus, but rather an experience-point bonus.

EDIT to add: All this was notably revised with D&D Supplement I (Greyhawk).