This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?  (Read 11157 times)

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #105 on: January 03, 2021, 11:23:28 AM »
Hm, I disagree that it's more useful to look at the bonus relative to the chance of success or failure without bonus, rather than relative to the chance of success or failure overall. Because in the game, the only differences that matter are the ones that affect player decisions enough to alter them. For that, it's the absolute chance of success or failure that matters, not the relative one.

If I have a 15% chance to leap across a chasm without dying, that's a risk I'd avoid at all costs. I couldn't care less if 15 is "50%" more than 10, or that it's "150%" more than 5 (maybe I got a +2 even!), because the relative change isn't ever going to affect my ultimate decision as a player. The only thing I care about is that I still have an 85% chance of dying, and until that number is low enough (via 5% increments), I'm staying on this side of the chasm.
If the only thing that matters is whether it affects a player's a decision, than a +1 bonus to hit would be pointless because a fighter is going to swing either way. You're treating it as if some arbitrary threshold is the only thing that matters, when it's really about cumulative effects over time. Risk aversion is also highly situational, because why would you jump when there's any chance at all of dying, unless there was some compelling reason? In that case, it's more about managing the risk vs. the reward or other risks. Which is inherently subjective.

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #106 on: January 03, 2021, 11:33:19 AM »
If the only thing that matters is whether it affects a player's a decision, than a +1 bonus to hit would be pointless because a fighter is going to swing either way.

Whether it affects decision-making isn't the only thing that matters, but it's the primary thing that affects the actual game. The fact that a fighter will essentially ignore that +1 bonus when making decisions is demonstration that the 5% increment isn't substantial -- and in fact it's not, and won't significantly affect the outcome of a situation, no matter how creative you get with percentage comparisons.

This is Erik's point as I understand it. It's not until those +1's start to stack up to larger bonuses that they begin to have anything other than a "freak occurrence" type of effect on the game. The "point" to +1 bonuses is that they add up to a larger bonus, which eventually does matter.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #107 on: January 03, 2021, 11:37:14 AM »
If the only thing that matters is whether it affects a player's a decision, than a +1 bonus to hit would be pointless because a fighter is going to swing either way.

Whether it affects decision-making isn't the only thing that matters, but it's the primary thing that affects the actual game. The fact that a fighter will essentially ignore that +1 bonus when making decisions is demonstration that the 5% increment isn't substantial -- and in fact it's not, and won't significantly affect the outcome of a situation, no matter how creative you get with percentage comparisons.

This is Erik's point as I understand it. It's not until those +1's start to stack up to larger bonuses that they begin to have anything other than a "freak occurrence" type of effect on the game. The "point" to +1 bonuses is that they add up to a larger bonus, which eventually does matter.
But if a single +1 increases your chance of success by 50%, that can add up significantly over the course of a game. While a +1 that only adds 6% to your chance of success will have a much smaller effect. Incremental effects matter, not just once they pass some arbitrary threshold. And it's the relative effect, not the absolute one, that determines the degree.

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #108 on: January 03, 2021, 11:42:20 AM »
But if a single +1 increases your chance of success by 50%, that can add up significantly over the course of a game. While a +1 that only adds 6% to your chance of success will have a much smaller effect. Incremental effects matter, not just once they pass some arbitrary threshold. And it's the relative effect, not the absolute one, that determines the degree.

Yes, 5% increases matter when they add up, but not until. My point is that your 50% figure is entirely unhelpful and in fact misleading. It's an attempt to conflate a "50% increase" with a "+50% chance of success", and as such it is fallacious.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #109 on: January 03, 2021, 11:43:51 AM »
But if a single +1 increases your chance of success by 50%, that can add up significantly over the course of a game. While a +1 that only adds 6% to your chance of success will have a much smaller effect. Incremental effects matter, not just once they pass some arbitrary threshold. And it's the relative effect, not the absolute one, that determines the degree.

Yes, 5% increases matter when they add up, but not until. My point is that your 50% figure is entirely unhelpful and in fact misleading. It's an attempt to conflate a "50% increase" with a "+50% chance of success", and as such it is fallacious.
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #110 on: January 03, 2021, 11:52:04 AM »
+1 on 1d20 = +5% is true, at least from a certain perspective. But while it's a popular way of looking at it, it's not a particularly useful one. Note this is more a general comment than anything else, using your post as a springboard. It's not really about your post, or even the d20 system.

Say you succeed on a 19+ on a d20. That means in two cases (19, 20) you succeed, and in 18 cases (1...18) you fail. How does a +1 affect that? A +1 has a minimal effect on your chances of failure, reducing it from 18/20 to 17/20. That works out out to a 5.56% reduction, which is pretty close to the +1 = 5%. But not the same, and that's because it's a very different way of looking at things. To show how different, consider the other end of the spectrum. With a +1, you now succeed on a 18, 19, or 20, not just on a 19 or 20. That +1 means your chance of success has increased by a whopping 50%.

The reverse happens when the chance of failure is low. If you succeed on a 3+, that means you fail on 1 or 2, and a -1 means your chance of failure increases by 50% (since you now fail on a 1, 2, or 3).

Hm, I disagree that it's more useful to look at the bonus relative to the chance of success or failure without bonus, rather than relative to the chance of success or failure overall. Because in the game, the only differences that matter are the ones that affect player decisions enough to alter them. For that, it's the absolute chance of success or failure that matters, not the relative one.

If I have a 15% chance to leap across a chasm without dying, that's a risk I'd avoid at all costs. I couldn't care less if 15 is "50%" more than 10, or that it's "200%" more than 5 (maybe I got a +2 even!), because the relative change isn't ever going to affect my ultimate decision as a player. The only thing I care about is that I still have an 85% chance of dying, and until that number is low enough (via 5% increments), I'm staying on this side of the chasm.

Agreed.  The overall chance of success is more important (psychologically) to most, I would wager, than the relative chances as modified.  I think people tend to forget that, as originally conceived, there was nothing special about the d20.  Heck, there were times when players would draw slips of paper to determine the results of actions.  The d20 took on a role as the determinant of hits and misses because the d100 was more granular than necessary, and 5% gradations seemed suitable, and the roll was on a chart of armor vs weapon.  It's only with the attempt to "unify" mechanics under WotC that the d20 became the arbiter of all actions, with standardized bonuses across the board.  I don't think the d20's 5% chance was ever intended to be the baseline for skill improvement.

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #111 on: January 03, 2021, 11:53:32 AM »
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.
Sorry, if you can't tell the difference there, I can't explain it any better. I think it's pretty obvious that a +1 does not provide a +50% bonus, but carry on.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #112 on: January 03, 2021, 11:55:45 AM »
But if a single +1 increases your chance of success by 50%, that can add up significantly over the course of a game. While a +1 that only adds 6% to your chance of success will have a much smaller effect. Incremental effects matter, not just once they pass some arbitrary threshold. And it's the relative effect, not the absolute one, that determines the degree.

Yes, 5% increases matter when they add up, but not until. My point is that your 50% figure is entirely unhelpful and in fact misleading. It's an attempt to conflate a "50% increase" with a "+50% chance of success", and as such it is fallacious.
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.

But that's not how most people make decisions.  Tell someone that if they cut out eating all meat they'd cut their chance of getting some disease in half and you might get their attention.  Then tell them their chance of getting the disease drops from 0.04% to 0.02% and watch them go get a burger...

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #113 on: January 03, 2021, 12:08:01 PM »
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.
Sorry, if you can't tell the difference there, I can't explain it any better. I think it's pretty obvious that a +1 does not provide a +50% bonus, but carry on.
A +1 to a 1d20, when you need a 19 or 20, does provide a 50% bonus. It increases the number of rolls on a d20 that will result in success from 2, to 3. A 50% increase.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #114 on: January 03, 2021, 12:10:55 PM »
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.
Sorry, if you can't tell the difference there, I can't explain it any better. I think it's pretty obvious that a +1 does not provide a +50% bonus, but carry on.
It's word games using an extreme outlier to try and make +1 relevant on its own. +1 if you only succeed on a 20 does double your odds of success, but only because the initial odds were so abysmal. By contrast, if you succeed on an 8+ (say DC 15 with a +7 modifier) then +1 only increases your odds of success by 7.7% (from 65% to 70%).

The importance of a given bonus is relative to the original odds and how often it will come into play. +1 on an attack in the early levels of D&D can be significant because starting ACs are often very high relative to the attack bonus and attack checks are made again and again. +1 to a check made once per session and which you already had a 65% chance of making are trivial... mattering maybe once in a dozen sessions.

ETA: for the opposite extreme of Pat's word games, if you succeed on a 2+ and natural 1's always fail, then even a +100 bonus will make no difference in your performance.

Generally when people insist on extreme outliers to make their case, its because reasonable examples show the case is a sham.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 12:15:46 PM by Chris24601 »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #115 on: January 03, 2021, 12:12:07 PM »
But if a single +1 increases your chance of success by 50%, that can add up significantly over the course of a game. While a +1 that only adds 6% to your chance of success will have a much smaller effect. Incremental effects matter, not just once they pass some arbitrary threshold. And it's the relative effect, not the absolute one, that determines the degree.

Yes, 5% increases matter when they add up, but not until. My point is that your 50% figure is entirely unhelpful and in fact misleading. It's an attempt to conflate a "50% increase" with a "+50% chance of success", and as such it is fallacious.
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.

But that's not how most people make decisions.  Tell someone that if they cut out eating all meat they'd cut their chance of getting some disease in half and you might get their attention.  Then tell them their chance of getting the disease drops from 0.04% to 0.02% and watch them go get a burger...
It's exactly how people make decisions. Psychological studies have shown that people think in relative terms, when it comes to probabilities. It's why, for instance, UX studies show that a 40% increase in speed (relative) is needed for people to feel that their computer is quicker. It doesn't matter how fast the original computer was, or if the absolute increase was greater (because the computer being tested was faster than in another test).

Incidentally, both your examples are relative, halving the chance of success. I agree that people don't naturally think in terms of numbers, but that's different than absolute vs. relative probabilities.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 12:17:16 PM by Pat »

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #116 on: January 03, 2021, 12:25:27 PM »
When I first read this thread title I thought it was hyperbole. But having read the thread, I'm not so sure.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #117 on: January 03, 2021, 12:25:43 PM »
A 50% increase in the chances of success is a +50% to the chance of success. That's literally what it means. It's not fallacious, it's a tautology.
Sorry, if you can't tell the difference there, I can't explain it any better. I think it's pretty obvious that a +1 does not provide a +50% bonus, but carry on.
It's word games using an extreme outlier to try and make +1 relevant on its own. +1 if you only succeed on a 20 does double your odds of success, but only because the initial odds were so abysmal. By contrast, if you succeed on an 8+ (say DC 15 with a +7 modifier) then +1 only increases your odds of success by 7.7% (from 65% to 70%).

The importance of a given bonus is relative to the original odds and how often it will come into play. +1 on an attack in the early levels of D&D can be significant because starting ACs are often very high relative to the attack bonus and attack checks are made again and again. +1 to a check made once per session and which you already had a 65% chance of making are trivial... mattering maybe once in a dozen sessions.

ETA: for the opposite extreme of Pat's word games, if you succeed on a 2+ and natural 1's always fail, then even a +100 bonus will make no difference in your performance.

Generally when people insist on extreme outliers to make their case, its because reasonable examples show the case is a sham.
In my first post, I literally pointed that a +1 matters a lot at one end of the spectrum, and relatively little at the other. In other words, I made exactly the point you just repeated. And I also talked about how that's important, precisely because RPGs tend to clump results toward the end of the spectrum. Which is the other point you just repeated.

Fuck you. If you're going to accuse me of word games, don't claim I'm wrong and then say I should have used the exact same arguments I did use.

Everything I said is factually correct, presented in the correct context, and is a more valid way of looking at probabilities than +1 = +5%. Failing to understand that +1 varies depending where in the range you are is a simple failure to understand basic probabilities.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #118 on: January 03, 2021, 12:54:19 PM »
Stuff.
Given that multiple people are apparently misunderstanding your arguments in exactly the same way, that suggests to me that the failure is not in our ability to comprehend your arguments (if this were the case people who are wrongly interpreting your statements would be doing so in different ways), but rather that you're failing to communicate your argument as effectively as you think you are (which is why different people are misinterpreting it in the same way).

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #119 on: January 03, 2021, 01:01:07 PM »
Stuff.
Given that multiple people are apparently misunderstanding your arguments in exactly the same way, that suggests to me that the failure is not in our ability to comprehend your arguments (if this were the case people who are wrongly interpreting your statements would be doing so in different ways), but rather that you're failing to communicate your argument as effectively as you think you are (which is why different people are misinterpreting it in the same way).
I always consider that. But there are three points against that. The first is I've looked at what I said, and it's seems pretty clear. That's not conclusive, because I could have missed something. But for me to reconsider that, you'd have to demonstrate where I miscommunicated, not just make a vague claim. Secondly, they didn't misunderstand my arguments in the same way. You made one argument, and they made other arguments. And most importantly is the third: People really don't understand probability well, and it can be challenging to break down their preconceptions. That's the reason why I posted what I posted. I expected some pushback.

Edit: There's also a fourth: It's the internet. People tend to skim, rather than read for content. For instance, your last post can be easily explained if you just read the last post or two in the thread, and didn't go back and read my original post. You could have gotten the idea that I'm arguing that +1 = 50% all the time, but that would have been a false impression, because you were missing context. Starting to listen to a conversation in the middle can give a very misleading impression.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 01:05:14 PM by Pat »