Quote from: jhkimHowever, a test of strength like arm-wrestling is resolved as a single Strength contest, in which the kobold has a 9% of winning.

Quote from: mightybrain;1129662Yeah, so for an arm wrestling contest, first to three would seem fairer. A lot of real world arm wrestling matches end up as 3-2 victories. Which shows that these contests are not entirely pre-determined by the statistics, otherwise they'd always be 3-0 victories. Even so, the fighter would win 999 in 1,000 such games.

I would ask you to think for a bit and picture this in your head. One of the strongest men in the world - an Olympic weight-lifter or the equivalent - has to arm-wrestle a little runt with below-average strength. He loses the first match, and he says "Can we do 2 out of 3? That would be more fair."  He then goes on to win.

That is a result utterly divorced from reality. If I saw it in a movie, I would think it was intentional parody or something. There is simply no way it would happen.

The reason why arm wrestling contests end up in 3-2 victories is because the contestants are very closely matched due to ranking. The same is true of most other tournaments -- whether physical or mental. The way to get tense games is by carefully ranking who is testing against who. The top champion will almost always beat someone in the middle of the rankings. But someone in the middle of the rankings is still really good, and will almost always beat a beginner. That's true in chess, arm-wrestling, and many other contests.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1129667In the traditional D&D, though, "Wisdom" is not about instincts, mental agility, and alertness.  It's been gradually morphed into that by WotC, so that now for a lot of people the question is not, "Why are your connections with philosophic thoughts and insights into the gods making you a scout?" but rather, "Why are your instincts, mental agility, and alertness" making you a good clerical spell caster?"  You can Humpty/Dumpty the meaning of "Wisdom" in the game as one way of dealing with that, but it still isn't going to make it two things at once.  

Moreover, people have noticed with those shifts in value that Charisma makes an arguably better stat for clerics--not surprising given how it as also shifted meaning.  Once you start down that road, though, better off to just admit and rename the attributes to Perception and Insight or whatever centers on what you actually use it for.  Which brings us back to my previous point, that "tradition" on the cheap, with lip service to tradition but changing the meaning under the hood, doesn't really work.

As for art, I couldn't say.  I can say something about law enforcement perspective.  Yes, there are exercises you can go through to bring out whatever talent you have, but they typically do not work for everyone, or even most people.  Furthermore, people who are notably talented in such things don't usually need the exercises to stand out in that respect--though the exercises will maximize their already considerable talent. Which in game terms to me sounds like an attribute that people have, which gets modified only very slightly with work.  That is, perception is more like strength than like a typical "skill".

This is partly an issue of people getting hung up with words and ascribing specific meanings to them (to the exclusion of others) instead of accepting them as approximate game concepts with their own specialized meanings for "it's a game" purposes.

But Wisdom in particular was always an issue even back in the day, when the question would be "what is the real functional and fundamental difference between Intelligence and Wisdom?" People would jump through hoops trying justify the existence of both as separate stats by going into nuance and falling back on their "books smarts" vs "common sense" distinctions. But the reality is that based on real life definitions of these words Intelligence and Wisdom are just slightly different variations of essentially the same overall concept that can even be used as synonyms for each other. And the "you are wise beyond your years" definition of Wisdom is too specialized yet vague on its own to adequately encompass an entire stat in terms of functionality.

It's only once we get to the "instincts, mental agility, and alertness" definition of recent D&D editions plus the older "willpower" aspects of it that Wisdom even begins to make sense as its own stat. Even then I'm not sure it's enough or that you can draw a broad enough range of functionalities to treat it as an RPG stat, which is itself part of a separate question about "what functions/purposes should an RPG stat have?"

My position is that a 1/1 simulation is impossible so we should limit ourselves to "good enough" approximations for purposes of "it's a game", where attributes are treated as core abilities with a broad range of functionalities that can be broken down into more specific functions handled by other abilities (such as skills or powers). And if an "attribute" isn't broad enough to be broken down into more specific functions that are actually useful in the context of "it's a game", then that attribute shouldn't exist in the game--even if some analog arguably exists in real life (such as Intuition or Willpower)--unless it's handled as narrower type of ability, like a skill or trait.

In my own system I folded the entire range of "mental agility" functionalities into a single attribute called "Awareness", which encompasses everything that has to do with instincts, alertness, mental quickness, problem-solving, insight, etc. In D&D terms, Awareness is basically Intelligence plus the "alertness/insight" aspects of Wisdom. The "willpower" aspects of wisdom belongs to another attribute called "Presence" (also called Bearing at one time), which represents a character's "mental power", encompassing confidence, conviction, resolve, force of personality and personal charm--in D&D terms pretty much Charisma, plus willpower (which is what charisma has slowly warped into in D&D over the past two editions).

Physical attributes are generalized as well--Might ("physical power", or Strength + Constitution in D&D) and Reflexes ("physical agility", or Dexterity plus Athletics and melee accuracy in D&D). Then all the specific stuff is either a skill (which are themselves general skills) based on those attributes, a specialty based on their skills, or some type of power functionality, which are handled using universal game effects.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1129628You have made this claim but you have yet to adequately make your case for it. I've made the case for unified mechanics and it goes well beyond aesthetics and includes a lot logical and practical reasons for it. But as far as I can tell the only reason to use disparate mechanics is aesthetic.

You started this tangent by making up things I didn't say, and now you're claiming I never said what I actually said. If you're going to pretend I said thing I didn't, and pretend I didn't say what I did, then you're not even talking to me, so there's really no way to have a conversation. But for reference, I included at least 4 times where I laid out the argument you said I didn't, below (spoiler blocked to have mercy on the other people in the thread). You never really addressed any of the points, except to say you disagree. Similarly, you haven't really a made a case for your side, beyond expressing a preference for unified mechanics.

Spoiler

Quote from: Pat;1129570To provide a positive example, consider B/X D&D: The d20 attack roll is different from the generic skill (or "do things in the dungeon") d6 roll, which is different from the % thief skills, and that's different from the 2d6 morale roll. Contrast that with the d20 system, where skills, saves, spell resistance, and knocking down doors, attacks, and saves all use the same basic d20 + mods vs. a target number mechanic.

Yet in D&D3, I always had a hard time remembering how spell resistance worked, because it looked superficially like the more common d20 rolls, but it had very different parameters (caster level instead of spell level like saves, etc.). It's apparent similarity to the other mechanics is exactly what made it hard to remember, because they made it look too much like other subsystems. Conversely, in B/X D&D, it was always easy to remember what I needed to roll for opening a door or attacking an orc, because the heterogeneous resolutions methods used distinct visual and tactile mnemonics. When you have mechanics that are substantially different, they should look and feel different; when mechanics with fundamental differences look the same, it makes them harder to keep straight.

Quote from: Pat;1129584But the d20 system is a unified system in that a lot of mechanics that work very differently are forced into a similar-seeming d20 roll. For instance, attack rolls operate differently than skills operate differently than saves operate differently than spell resistance, but they all use the same dice roll, add modifiers, and compare them to a target number. That's an example of the kind of unified system I have a problem with, because it's masking some very different things by making them look alike. It's just good user interface design to give reinforcement signals when you change modes, and having different dice or a distinct method of reading them is a good way to do it in RPG design. Conversely, unified mechanics have no real virtue in themselves. Yes, there are benefits to simplicity and grouping similar things, but that's not generally what anyone means when they say "unified mechanic".

Quote from: Pat;1129605It is not a minor issue, if it comes up frequently, and you have to look it up every time. The degree by which it breaks the flow of the game matters, and so does the frequency. Good design should be easily internalized, and become automatic, except when there's a good reason to force people to make a decision. Which number you add to a d20 roll isn't a good reason to continually break the flow of the game. If you think of the mechanics as the interface of a video game, then having two systems that look similar but aren't is equivalent to having the drop shields and attack buttons placed so it's easy to squash the wrong one, and you end up blowing up all the time because you dropped your defenses instead of shooting.

Quote from: Pat;1129608Many gamers seem to like elegance and symmetry for the sake of elegance of symmetry, and this manifests in various ways, including arguing in favor of unified mechanics. I'm arguing this is an irrational preference. Design decisions should be made on whether the mechanic improves the game, not based on some vague aesthetic.

.... That's a similar concept to mechanics that are fundamentally different, but look very similar. When two things are distinct, we can learn them separately and keep them compartmentalized. But when two things look similar but are fundamentally different, it can be a lot harder to keep them straight.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1129667In the traditional D&D, though, "Wisdom" is not about instincts, mental agility, and alertness.  It's been gradually morphed into that by WotC, so that now for a lot of people the question is not, "Why are your connections with philosophic thoughts and insights into the gods making you a scout?" but rather, "Why are your instincts, mental agility, and alertness" making you a good clerical spell caster?"  You can Humpty/Dumpty the meaning of "Wisdom" in the game as one way of dealing with that, but it still isn't going to make it two things at once.  

I'd go a step further, and point out that abilities or attributes are one of the most artificial aspects of a game. Natural talents don't come in packages like that, and they're usually stretched to the point of absurdity in many games, because there's a compulsion to assign some attribute to everything. For instance, climbing. Yes, strength helps. But specifically, it's gripping strength, not overall strength. And strength is usually associated with size, which actually hinders climbing, for the same reason the best gymnasts are small. The best climbers are scrawny little guys with corded muscles in their wrists. And that's ignoring all the other factors, like balance, assessment, not having sweaty palms, and so on.

Quote from: jhkim;1129689I would ask you to think for a bit and picture this in your head. One of the strongest men in the world - an Olympic weight-lifter or the equivalent - has to arm-wrestle a little runt with below-average strength. He loses the first match, and he says "Can we do 2 out of 3? That would be more fair."  He then goes on to win.

I was picturing: he loses 1 roll, his arm begins to tilt back, the crowd murmur, but then he wins the next 3 and slams the kobold's arm down. Sure, there might be a wobble here or there, but he will almost always win when the differences between the bonuses and penalties are that high. The likelihood is he will win 3 games to 0 in a best of five tournament.

Quote from: jhkim;1129689But someone in the middle of the rankings is still really good, and will almost always beat a beginner. That's true in chess, arm-wrestling, and many other contests.

Right. And that, in 5e D&D terms, would be expertise. In 5e this is worth between +4 at low levels, up to +12 at high levels. Arm wrestling is not only about how much you can lift. You could make a pretty good rogue hustler character that has a low strength but takes expertise in athletics. Who would imagine that such a weak looking figure could regularly beat the strong men in athletic feats. The fact that most would refuse to believe it is what would make it such an effective hustle.

Quote from: Pat;1129748You started this tangent by making up things I didn't say, and now you're claiming I never said what I actually said. If you're going to pretend I said thing I didn't, and pretend I didn't say what I did, then you're not even talking to me, so there's really no way to have a conversation. But for reference, I included at least 4 times where I laid out the argument you said I didn't, below (spoiler blocked to have mercy on the other people in the thread). You never really addressed any of the points, except to say you disagree. Similarly, you haven't really a made a case for your side, beyond expressing a preference for unified mechanics.

Whatever, dude. I'm not even sure what it is that I "made up" that you said. All I did was voice an opinion in regards to something you said as part of a broader discussion on action resolution. And I did refute those points with specific reasons beyond just "I disagree"--some of your criticisms were not even about unified mechanics, but D&D doing unified mechanics wrong (which is the fault unified mechanics somehow), and your assertion that using different mechanics for different tasks somehow helping mnemonic process simply begs the question. You've simply asserted that's the case but haven't backed it up with anything, like it's some self-evident truth that using ten different processes for ten different things is somehow easier to remember than using ONE process to do everything.

But I'm not gonna go back and rehash this whole thing because this is pointless.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1129768You've simply asserted that's the case but haven't backed it up with anything, like it's some self-evident truth that using ten different processes for ten different things is somehow easier to remember than using ONE process to do everything.

Except that's not at all what I said, ever. Every single time, I specifically pointed out the problem is mechanics that are fundamentally different, but look similar.

If you have any serious interest in the topic, look into UX and usability theory.

Quote from: jhkim;1129689I would ask you to think for a bit and picture this in your head. One of the strongest men in the world - an Olympic weight-lifter or the equivalent - has to arm-wrestle a little runt with below-average strength. He loses the first match, and he says "Can we do 2 out of 3? That would be more fair."  He then goes on to win.

That is a result utterly divorced from reality. If I saw it in a movie, I would think it was intentional parody or something. There is simply no way it would happen.

The reason why arm wrestling contests end up in 3-2 victories is because the contestants are very closely matched due to ranking. The same is true of most other tournaments -- whether physical or mental. The way to get tense games is by carefully ranking who is testing against who. The top champion will almost always beat someone in the middle of the rankings. But someone in the middle of the rankings is still really good, and will almost always beat a beginner. That's true in chess, arm-wrestling, and many other contests.

In your example it takes a very special kind of GM to call for a roll.

If the disparity is that high the winner is adjudicated without the need of a roll since it falls under the stuff so easy to do you don't ask for a roll, Like walking.

Quote from: Pat;1129770

Quote from: VisionStorm;1129768...your assertion that using different mechanics for different tasks somehow helping mnemonic process simply begs the question. You've simply asserted that's the case but haven't backed it up with anything, like it's some self-evident truth that using ten different processes for ten different things is somehow easier to remember than using ONE process to do everything.

But I'm not gonna go back and rehash this whole thing because this is pointless.

Except that's not at all what I said, ever. Every single time, I specifically pointed out the problem is mechanics that are fundamentally different, but look similar.

I'm sorry for not copy/pasting exactly what you said...

Quote from: Pat;1129570Conversely, in B/X D&D, it was always easy to remember what I needed to roll for opening a door or attacking an orc, because the heterogeneous resolutions methods used distinct visual and tactile mnemonics. When you have mechanics that are substantially different, they should look and feel different; when mechanics with fundamental differences look the same, it makes them harder to keep straight.

...this whole thing begs the question. Even in the part I didn't specifically address (last sentence in the quote, above) you're still making the claim that using essentially the same mechanic across the entire system is somehow "harder to keep straight" when dealing actions that are different (combat, spellcasting, skills, etc.), which is fundamentally absurd. How can using the same task resolution mechanic across the entire system--meaning that you only have to remember ONE thing--make it more difficult to remember how to resolve tasks?

Even taking into consideration the specific example that you provide--

Quote from: Pat;1129570Yet in D&D3, I always had a hard time remembering how spell resistance worked, because it looked superficially like the more common d20 rolls, but it had very different parameters (caster level instead of spell level like saves, etc.). It's apparent similarity to the other mechanics is exactly what made it hard to remember, because they made it look too much like other subsystems.

...which is an example that applies ONLY to D&D, and ONLY because it's badly implemented unified mechanics--we're still dealing with nearly identical mechanics. But because YOU personally can't remember what number to add in ONE circumstance in ONE specific game that uses a mishmash of subsystems rather than truly unify the whole thing that's somehow a testament against the entire enterprise of unified mechanics.

Quote from: Pat;1129770If you have any serious interest in the topic, look into UX and usability theory.

I'm not sure how pointing to a broad topic like user experience proves your point.

....
And to nip this in the bud while we're at it...

Quote from: Pat;1129580Where do you disagree with me? Because in my original post, the only thing I said was that I disliked unified systems. Vision Storm posted a followup that assumed I said all kinds of things I never said, and created a lengthy rebuttal based on those imaginary fabrications. But to make it clear, I didn't say anything that Vision Storm implied, nor do I believe any of that crap. It's quite literally a strawman position, created solely to be knocked down, and in no way represents what I believe.

The reason I'm posting this is because, when someone makes up a lengthy rebuttal based on false premises like that, people casually reading a thread seem to frequently assume the original poster actually holds the strawman position. Even when the original poster makes a later post, as I did, disclaiming it.

I read your post, and don't see anything that disagrees with anything I said. Your position does not seem to be halfway between mine, and Vision Storm's. Which suggests you're ascribing to me the position Vision Storm created, rather than responding to what I actually said. And since I have zero interest in defending a strawman position I don't hold, I want to put a stop to that.

I never "assumed" things that you never said. I merely voiced a opinion (or several) making the case for unified mechanics--quoting one of your posts, since you were the one who brought it up. I never claimed that you said anything (you may look at my original post below and tell me where I did) nor constructed a straw man. I merely spoke on generalities about the subject, in thread dealing with task resolution mechanics, which includes unified mechanics, making it a relevant topic. Then you decided to take it personal and started arguing me on the topic despite not believing "any of that crap".

Sorry that you lack reading comprehension.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1129559I disagree about unified mechanics for several reasons:

1: I have yet to seen a single RPG with non-unified mechanics that not only also failed to adequately represent these sort of outliers in skill rolls, but that didn't additionally over complicate the entire system by providing widely disparate mechanics to handle everything.  All they accomplish is to make mechanics an inconsistent mess.

Old D&D had non-unified mechanics, not because they worked better to handle these details, but because RPGs were still new and IMO the designers where making things up as they went along, so they didn't think to handle them under a unified mechanic. Other systems did it first. Then when D&D finally did it by 3e it never went back or get revised in later editions because it simply worked better than old D&D ever did. Unified mechanics were the fix for the inconsistent mess that old D&D non-unified mechanics used to be.

2: Skill rolls in most games usually represent ability tests during risky situations of high uncertainty, like the middle of combat or working with inadequate time or materials. No system ever calls for you to make rolls to perform routine tasks. To handle more deterministic tasks, like physical sciences or engineering, you could just assign a minimum skill level to attempt certain actions and require a skill roll only during uncertain situations, or if the character is attempting to accomplish something special.

3: It's a game. That doesn't mean that therefore things don't have to make sense, ever. But it does mean that sometimes you're gonna have to make compromises to make things feasible within the context of the game rules. The reason why these points you mention seem to suck in terms of game mechanics is because, IMO, they're impossible to adequately represent in terms of game mechanics and every game is gonna suck at representing these things in a "realistic" matter. But at least with unified mechanics you don't have to over complicate the system just so that you can still utterly fail to realistically represent this wide range of variability in task resolution.

I think we might have unreasonable expectations in the differentiation of abilities as well as difficulty grasping the probabilities. For example, here is Devon Larratt, a world champion arm wrestler, bench pressing about 255 lbs. That's a D&D equivalent of between 8 and 9 in raw strength terms (using the strength × 30 rule.) And here is Thor Björnsson, one of the world's strongest men, bench pressing 540 lbs. Appropriately, this is the D&D equivalent of an 18 strength.

And here is Devon beating Thor in an arm wrestle; with ease.

Even a 7 strength isn't weak. It's just lower than average; in a world were the average man can bench press around 345 lbs.

Quote from: mightybrain;1129843I think we might have unreasonable expectations in the differentiation of abilities as well as difficulty grasping the probabilities. For example, here is Devon Larratt, a world champion arm wrestler, bench pressing about 255 lbs. That's a D&D equivalent of between 8 and 9 in raw strength terms (using the strength × 30 rule.) And here is Thor Björnsson, one of the world's strongest men, bench pressing 540 lbs. Appropriately, this is the D&D equivalent of an 18 strength.

And here is Devon beating Thor in an arm wrestle; with ease.

Even a 7 strength isn't weak. It's just lower than average; in a world were the average man can bench press around 345 lbs.

I'm not sure on what world the average man can bench press 345lb, but it's not Earth! A typical man can't bench press 185lb without strength training.

Larratt in that video mentions it's his first time bench pressing in many years. A 255lb bench with years of detraining is very impressive. He would have no trouble benching 315+ with focused training. He's an 18 Strength in D&D-land.

Bjornsson's enormous strength is well beyond an 18, but his size is only possible with huge dosages of anabolic steroids, and probably exogenous insulin as well. There no humans in D&D-land as big as him. He's a good model for a 19 Str Ogre, I guess.

Edit: I see where you made the mistake - the 30 x Strength rule applies to lifting things off the ground using your entire body, i.e. a deadlift, not a bench press. Men typically can deadlift twice as much as they bench press. Bjornsson recently deadlifted 1104lb.

Quote from: mightybrain;1129843I think we might have unreasonable expectations in the differentiation of abilities as well as difficulty grasping the probabilities. For example, here is Devon Larratt, a world champion arm wrestler, bench pressing about 255 lbs. That's a D&D equivalent of between 8 and 9 in raw strength terms (using the strength × 30 rule.) And here is Thor Björnsson, one of the world's strongest men, bench pressing 540 lbs. Appropriately, this is the D&D equivalent of an 18 strength.

And here is Devon beating Thor in an arm wrestle; with ease.

Even a 7 strength isn't weak. It's just lower than average; in a world were the average man can bench press around 345 lbs.

Next show the video where Thor gets his ass handed to him by Floyd Mayweather in a boxing match! Arm wrestling, like it or not, requires some skill. Reference: Over The Top.

Quote from: Libramarian;1129857I'm not sure on what world the average man can bench press 345lb, but it's not Earth! A typical man can't bench press 185lb without strength training.

Larratt in that video mentions it's his first time bench pressing in many years. A 255lb bench with years of detraining is very impressive. He would have no trouble benching 315+ with focused training. He's an 18 Strength in D&D-land.

Bjornsson's enormous strength is well beyond an 18, but his size is only possible with huge dosages of anabolic steroids, and probably exogenous insulin as well. There no humans in D&D-land as big as him. He's a good model for a 19 Str Ogre, I guess.

Edit: I see where you made the mistake - the 30 x Strength rule applies to lifting things off the ground using your entire body, i.e. a deadlift, not a bench press. Men typically can deadlift twice as much as they bench press. Bjornsson recently deadlifted 1104lb.

In AD&D the average character with a STR of 8-11 can carry unencumbered 35lb. Or 105 heavily encumbered.
A person with 18 STR can do that with 110lb
And a person with 18/00 STR could do 335lb. or heavily encumbered up to 405lb. Thats the upper limit without magic or tomes. (couldnt find anything at a glance on just lifting with no movement, or upper limit of lift/carry)

In BX strength has no bearing at all on carrying capacity.

In 5e the average person with a STR 11 carry 165lb and lift 330lb. At 18 STR thats a lift of 540lb. And at the max of 20 its 600lb lift.

Quote from: Pat;1129548...a tiny kobold should have zero chance against a large man in anything directly strength-related.

A woman should have zero chance  against a large man in anything directly strength-related.
But hell it's fantasy.  ;-)

Quote from: DocJones;1129874A woman should have zero chance  against a large man in anything directly strength-related.
But hell it's fantasy.  ;-)

EXACTLY!

RPG systems are horrible 'reality' emulators.

Trying to do make an RPG model "how x is done in real life" is the worst design paradigm you can have for making an RPG system.

RPG's are Genre Emulators.

How I want my RPG system to model the Genre of play I want to see at the table, is the better design paradigm.