Quote from: mcbobbo;720949Again, same strawman.  Never once did I deny the laws of probability.  I'm just dismissing them as not as relevant as the minimum result on a given die when you're allowed to add them up.  Hopefully this clears things up, but I rather doubt it will.

Pause here for a second.  What's the assumed argument?

Because I have never once thought plotting out a bell curve would be exciting or fun.  Rather I imagine the discussion to be something around what character's stats are, as it relates to RPGs.  Given that nobody plays every character they roll, which is more relevant?

Again, which is more relevant?  The curve that could be generated by the dice?  Or the actual stats on the sheets at the table?

If you think the former, you're just not very bright, IMO.  It's a goddamn goofy thing to get hung up on.  It'd be like plotting all the possible colors of the sky, when we can probably assume it is blue just through simple observation.  We know there's a curve going from red to blue back to red again, but the sky is typically blue.

You're welcome to that opinion.  Please feel free to ignore me if it makes your life more comfortable.

But bear in mind that I am not arguing probability nor the math behind it nor anything of the sort.  It's possible that I've failed to communicate my argument to you.  It's also possible that you've failed to read it and/or comprehend it.

I've got no problem with you at all mcbobbo. However in this thread, at a minimum, you have failed to communicate your points in an effective way. Many people myself included got the clear impression from your earlier posts that you were indeed challenging the laws of probability, hence the many (mostly quite patient) attempts to explain the maths of the situation to you. Your reply to those posts was to say that you have an open mind so you question everything, unlike all those sheeple who believe televangelists etc. Implying (or so it seemed) that the laws of probability were not a fact and that people who believed in it must be deluded. You seem as well to have been responding to an argument that the most probable outcome is in effect guaranteed, which is not an argument that anyone has actually made, and that if the most probable outcome does not come up then it somehow disproves or diminishes the laws of probability, which is not an argument that anyone who understands probability could make.

Apologies if this was not the message you meant to give out, but if you look back on this thread I think you might see how everyone got this impression.

Quote from: mcbobbo;720949If I'm wrong and you have contributed a SINGLE POSITIVE POST to any one of the threads I've started, I'll apologize.

What do you define as "POSITIVE?" If you've come looking for a virtual handjob, you're on the wrong forum.

I've offered numerous constructive, on-topic posts, in threads you've started or in reply to posts you've made. That doesn't mean I agree with you; in fact, I disagree with you on pretty much everything, it seems.

But after making several substantive replies in your railroading thread, I noticed that you repeatedly misrepresented what I wrote in your replies. I concluded that constructive replies to you are pretty much a waste of time.

But, please, continue to play the victim, if it helps you get through the day.

Quote from: mcbobbo;720749Yes.  This about nails it.  I think I am placing more weight on the prediction capability than most folks do.  Probably, no offense to anyone intended, because I am talking about playing an actual game and not about all the possible results over several million rolls. I have emotion attached to it.

As for 3d6 for stats, people always forget the human-driven floor.  Yeah, sure, the dice produce a curve.  Fine.  But the actual character stats almost certainly do not conform because nobody is forced to play the characters with dehabilitating stats.  Someone needs to do a survey of actual character stats at 1st level,  that omits any character that doesn't survive more than two adventures (to counter novelties and suicides.)  Theory surrounding the behavior of the dice and probability is one thing, and actually playing the game, experiencing the emotions therein, is something else.

But fuck all that because of math, right guys?

I did notice while watching a play through of Betrayal at House on the Hill that opposed non-floor rolls seem tolerable to me.  Both sides have the same suck factor.  So that might make a decent successes system, for me, where the GM rolls the difficulty using the same mechanic.  I dunno, I'd have to try it.

Emotions are irrelevant to the rolls unless you are micro-reflexing the results negative. And alot of people with the micro-reflex ability tend to force negative results. Mercifully that ability is rare.

In RPGs you can usually just roll up a new character if you dont like the first. So it becomes irrelevant there unless the GM is forcing players to roll and play it as they fall. Some groups do.

Otherwise you are going to get a general average character rolling 3d6 with stats ranging 8 - 13 or ranging  10 - 15 using the roll 4 keep 3 method. Your chance of getting a 3 then is pretty low. .08%.

And that is about the range most of my characters ended up in, with an occasional 16 or 7. And the inevitible 18 or 3 sooner or later. Usually later.

Just one go with the r4k3 method and got 15, 10, 10, 8, 10, 16. Enough to get a so-so fighter, a paladin or a magic-user. Those are pretty close to my original MU's stats too. (6 ,16, 12, 12, 10, 14

A character with average stats in D&D is usually still viable with some effort unless you somehow totally washed out. Some players even like playing characters like that for the challenge. Since even with D&D alone there are so many approaches, it just doesnt matter. There is no standard to base on.

As for betrayal. Looks like it uses a simmilar cluster success mechanic? Or is it additive vs opposed?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;721034What do you define as "POSITIVE?" If you've come looking for a virtual handjob, you're on the wrong forum.

I've offered numerous constructive, on-topic posts, in threads you've started or in reply to posts you've made. That doesn't mean I agree with you; in fact, I disagree with you on pretty much everything, it seems.

But after making several substantive replies in your railroading thread, I noticed that you repeatedly misrepresented what I wrote in your replies. I concluded that constructive replies to you are pretty much a waste of time.

But, please, continue to play the victim, if it helps you get through the day.

FWIW, I spent a fair amount of time reflecting on our behavior over the last few years and I can't necessarily say I am proud of any of it.  I still genuinely think you wronged me by making me your enemy de jour without cause.  But I have decided to forgive and forget.

Have a nice life, sir.

Quote from: soviet;721008Your reply to those posts was to say that you have an open mind so you question everything, unlike all those sheeple who believe televangelists etc. Implying (or so it seemed) that the laws of probability were not a fact and that people who believed in it must be deluded.

Not deluded.  Sorry if that's what was read.  Using televangelists as a comparison is apt, though, because there are two types of Christians:

Some folks do what the preacher says, because it's what the Bible says.

Other people read it, understand it, and try to put it into context.

Most of the replies I got were advocating the former.  "Go find a website to believe in" they said.  "You should never question this" etc.  That's just not me.

On the larger thread, my first post premise was wrong.  It is not only the size of the range on each die that matters.  I think I said so on maybe the second page.

However, within the limited number of rolls you are allowed in that particular game, and when compared to the opportunity cost, the size of the range on the die still seems more important to me.

That's not mockable.  Or shouldn't be.  Yet if you scroll up a page or two, there they are...

Quote from: Omega;721552As for betrayal. Looks like it uses a simmilar cluster success mechanic? Or is it additive vs opposed?

It's a similar mechanic at the core, I think.  (I can't find a copy for a reasonable price.)  At least some of the sides on the die are blank.

But it's also different because you appear to add the dice together.

Then the rolls are opposed, for at least some of the important conflicts, like combat.

Arkham may well have more horror to it because the enemies have a floor (difficulty/damage/etc are non-random) the heroes do not.

Quote from: 3rik;720999But isn't the whole point of a game that there's a chance of failure?

Well, sure.  But I prefer it when upgrades mean better results,  rather than a higher probability of a good result.  A sword hit in D&D does 1-6 damage.  Sword +1 is 2-7.  The 1 result is now off the table.  I prefer that.  'Number of successes' takes that away, typically. 0 is still a possible result.

Since I was perfectly able to roll 0 before the upgrade, it feels hollow.

Quote from: mcbobbo;721600Not deluded.  Sorry if that's what was read.  Using televangelists as a comparison is apt, though, because there are two types of Christians:

Some folks do what the preacher says, because it's what the Bible says.

Other people read it, understand it, and try to put it into context.

Most of the replies I got were advocating the former.  "Go find a website to believe in" they said.  "You should never question this" etc.  That's just not me.

On the larger thread, my first post premise was wrong.  It is not only the size of the range on each die that matters.  I think I said so on maybe the second page.

However, within the limited number of rolls you are allowed in that particular game, and when compared to the opportunity cost, the size of the range on the die still seems more important to me.

That's not mockable.  Or shouldn't be.  Yet if you scroll up a page or two, there they are...

Simply put: You're risk-averse. 1dx+Mod vs. DC works for you because i) you can make decisions to eliminate failure, ii) and the linear nature of a single die makes the decision-making process transparent. If you need to make or exceed a DC 10 check, and you have a +4 modifier to your die, then you know you need to roll a 6 or better on your 1dx.

A 'number of successes' system fails because i) you can never eliminate failure, and ii) the cumulative nature of multiple dice makes the decision-making process more opaque. If you need to roll one 6 to succeed, and have 5d6 available, how many do you roll? A risk-loving person may just roll one or two, whereas a risk-averse person might roll all five. However, as a risk-averse person, you are likely to fixate on that relatively small chance of failure.

This thread really has less to do with math, and more to do with psychology.

I'm not even sure risk averse is how I'd put it.  That *may* be it, but I think the main thing is that mcbobbo likes games where the minimum expected result increases as you increase in capability.

Maybe that's just because to him 'more powerful' correlates strongly to 'can never fail at easy tasks'.  For all we know, he might play games and deliberately throw his character into risky situations.

But yeah, die-pool/number of successes systems don't generally increase the floor of results.

Quote from: mcbobbo;720944Church - The guys in your church group are solid workers, but they're snobs.  There's a decent (4 in 6) chance that each one of them will simply not show up.

Bowling League - These guys are heavy drinkers, and so may well show up so hungover as they're only able to carry lamps or something.  But all five will show up, every single time.

Which do you choose?

Me, I take the latter, for reasons discussed.

Why this makes me a whipping boy, I'll never know.

You dont ask 5 churchgoers - you ask 9. 5 will get you a good chance of 1, but a so-so chance of 2, and a not so great chance of 3. You need to stack the odds more in your favour by asking more people.

Hilariously my first example roll got it. 3 5 5 6 3. Took 5 more rolls to get 3 successes again with 5 dice. It took 19 rolls to get a 3rd success. 3 wins out of 25 rolls. Which is less than average, but such is fate.

First roll of 9 dice got it 2 6 3 4 2 2 6 3 5 and the next two rolls were successes too. The 4th roll was a fail. as was the 8th. At the end of 25 rolls 15 successes total.

Which is close enough to the 1 in 3 chance.

Personally I think it its not a great system for more dynamic uses. Usually you do not have enough of a pool to really stack the odds. But. It is a great system for desperation moves where spending one or two of your dwindling supply of dice might tip the odds in your favour for a roll that came up just one short. Hence the tokens to allow extra rolls. AH makes good use of the system as it fits the setting.

Its about the same as trying to hit on an 7 or less on a d20.

Quote from: mcbobbo;720950Also, death by crash isn't possible.  Have you ever grabbed five dice, had them crumble in your hand, and the GM just says you failed the roll?

You obviously never got any of the "disintigrating dice" from the TSR boxed sets? :eek:

Quote from: Enlightened;720963There is a 96.88% chance of at least one guy showing up.
There is a 81.25% chance of at least two guys showing up.
There is a 50% chance of three guys showing up.
There is a 18.75% chance of four guys showing up.
There is a 3.13% chance of all five guys showing up.



There is a 100% chance of all five guys showing up.

Hmmmm...

Do I choose a 50% chance or a 100% chance?  Decisions, decisions...

His problem is more complex.
50% chance of 3 good helpers.
Or 100% chance of 5 crummy workers.

Quote from: mcbobbo;720949Pause here for a second.  What's the assumed argument?

Because I have never once thought plotting out a bell curve would be exciting or fun.  Rather I imagine the discussion to be something around what character's stats are, as it relates to RPGs.  Given that nobody plays every character they roll, which is more relevant?

Again, which is more relevant?  The curve that could be generated by the dice?  Or the actual stats on the sheets at the table?

If you think the former, you're just not very bright, IMO.  It's a goddamn goofy thing to get hung up on.  It'd be like plotting all the possible colors of the sky, when we can probably assume it is blue just through simple observation.  We know there's a curve going from red to blue back to red again, but the sky is typically blue.

Knowledge of the curve is irrelevant. It still happens if you know, believe or disbelieve. And I used to disbelieve.

What is relevant is the individual urge at the moment and the factors of how those rolls are going to be used. Everyone will see the rolls differently.

I wanted to play a wizard and got fighter.
That is a fail to me and a win to the guy who wanted a fighter.
I can now either re-roll or play a fighter.
Assuming rolling another is allowed. Some GMs dont allow it.

The curve and the probabilities are still there.

No matter how good your armour is in D&D, a kobold can still crit you on a 20.

Quote from: mcbobbo;721603Well, sure.  But I prefer it when upgrades mean better results,  rather than a higher probability of a good result.  A sword hit in D&D does 1-6 damage.  Sword +1 is 2-7.  The 1 result is now off the table.  I prefer that.  'Number of successes' takes that away, typically. 0 is still a possible result.

Since I was perfectly able to roll 0 before the upgrade, it feels hollow.

I can see how someone might feel more comfortable with a literal +1 increase over an average increase of one.

As a game designer I might use both mechanics; one might fit better for some situations.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;720752Yesterday in the Guardian: Who needs facts? We appear to be in the Post-Information Age now

Please don't post links to political articles in the main RPG forum.