Distribution of success against TN 5.

Distribution of success against TN 5., This assumes iterative exploding 6's.

Options

blakkie

May 1 2005, 06:22 PM

Post #1

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

EDIT: Hmm, does anyone else still see the Code section with the spoiler closed?

For those interested, hopefully this can stick around until we have an actual system to use it with...assuming that in SR4 the 6's "explode" indefinately (i hope they do).

I wrote some code to empirically determining the probabilities of each number of successes across a range of dice rolled. I haven't done the theoritical formulas yet, but when someone does these numbers can be used as a validation check. The code, slapped together and poorly commented, was written in VBA. Check the spoiler if you want to read it to confirm my algorithms:

[ Spoiler ]

CODE

' global variable, because i'm lazy
Dim iCountRerolls As Integer

Function RollItAll()
Dim i As Integer
' test the results from 1 die through 12 die
For i = 1 To 12
' 1 million rolls
Call MultiRollExplodingSixes_TN5(1000000, i)
Next i
End Function

Function MultiRollExplodingSixes_TN5(iRolls As Long, iNumberOfDice As Integer) As Double
Dim i As Long
Dim iTotalSuccesses As Long
Dim iTotalRerolls As Long
Dim iMaxSuccesses As Integer
' hopefully 100 is big enough for the array, otherwise it will resize
Dim aSuccessDistribution(0 To 100) As Long

For i = 1 To iRolls
iSuccesses = RollExplodingSixes_TN5(iNumberOfDice)
iTotalSuccesses = iTotalSuccesses + iSuccesses
If iMaxSuccesses < iSuccesses Then
If iSuccesses > 100 Then
MsgBox "More than 100 successes in a single roll, truncating to 100 successes."
iSuccesses = 100
End If
iMaxSuccesses = iSuccesses
End If
aSuccessDistribution(iSuccesses) = aSuccessDistribution(iSuccesses) + 1
iTotalRerolls = iTotalRerolls + iCountRerolls
Next i

' header for number of dice
Debug.Print "Dice Rolled", iNumberOfDice
Debug.Print ""
Debug.Print "Successes", "% of Rolls"

' distribution of # of successes, as fraction of total rolls
For i = 0 To iMaxSuccesses
Debug.Print i, 100 * (aSuccessDistribution(i) / iRolls)
Next i
'average number of success per roll
Debug.Print "Average # successes", (iTotalSuccesses / iRolls)
'average number of times dice picked up for reroll
Debug.Print "Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll", (iTotalRerolls / iRolls)

Debug.Print "--------------------"

' also return the average
MultiRollExplodingSixes_TN5 = iTotalSuccesses / iRolls
End Function

Function RollExplodingSixes_TN5(iNumberOfDice As Integer) As Integer

iCountRerolls = 0
RollExplodingSixes_TN5 = CountSuccesses(iNumberOfDice)

End Function

Function CountSuccesses(iNumberOfDice As Integer) As Integer
Dim i As Integer
Dim iSuccesses As Integer
Dim iExploding As Integer
Dim iRoll As Integer

For i = 1 To iNumberOfDice
iRoll = Int(Rnd * 6)
If iRoll > 3 Then
iSuccesses = iSuccesses + 1
If iRoll > 4 Then
iExploding = iExploding + 1
End If
End If
Next i

If iExploding > 0 Then
iCountRerolls = iCountRerolls + 1
iSuccesses = iSuccesses + CountSuccesses(iExploding)
End If
CountSuccesses = iSuccesses
End Function

You kick it off by entering "=RollItAll()" in a cell in Excel (the code should likely work in Word too, or VB itself). The results are output, via the Debug object, to the Immediate window.

I also included an count of number of times the player will have to pick out the 6's and roll the smaller subset again. I didn't break it down, just gave it as an average along with the average number of successes.

The next post in this thread contains the outpt from a sample run. I ran the code using 1,000,000 rolls for each of the dice "pool" sizes. I don't have a T table handy, but I'm guessing that 1 million rolls should at the very least get the deviation from theoretcial values down to +/- 0.1% on each of the "% of Rolls" values.

blakkie

May 1 2005, 06:24 PM

Post #2

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

CODE

Dice Rolled 1

Successes % of Rolls
0 66.6091
1 27.832
2 4.6486
3 0.7605
4 0.1225
5 0.0221
6 0.0042
7 0.0007
8 0.0002
9 0.0001
Average # successes 0.400438
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.200008
--------------------

Dice Rolled 2

Successes % of Rolls
0 44.4798
1 36.998
2 13.902
3 3.6011
4 0.8014
5 0.1745
6 0.0341
7 0.0069
8 0.0019
9 0.0003
Average # successes 0.799542
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.371188
--------------------

Dice Rolled 3

Successes % of Rolls
0 29.6164
1 37.0323
2 21.6017
3 8.3134
4 2.5578
5 0.6747
6 0.1578
7 0.0355
8 0.0084
9 0.0012
10 0.0005
11 0.0003
Average # successes 1.200622
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.519058
--------------------

Dice Rolled 4

Successes % of Rolls
0 19.744
1 32.9175
2 26.0359
3 13.4937
4 5.339
5 1.7674
6 0.5154
7 0.1405
8 0.0354
9 0.0089
10 0.0015
11 0.0007
12 0.0001
Average # successes 1.601265
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.648137
--------------------

Dice Rolled 5

Successes % of Rolls
0 13.1835
1 27.4502
2 27.4526
3 17.8904
4 8.7766
5 3.4957
6 1.2235
7 0.3731
8 0.1092
9 0.0362
10 0.0066
11 0.0019
12 0.0003
13 0.0001
14 0.0001
Average # successes 1.998568
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.755866
--------------------

Dice Rolled 6

Successes % of Rolls
0 8.7777
1 21.8947
2 26.5624
3 20.9314
4 12.3676
5 5.8359
6 2.388
7 0.8412
8 0.2857
9 0.0817
10 0.0238
11 0.0071
12 0.0021
13 0.0005
14 0.0002
Average # successes 2.400515
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.853292
--------------------

Dice Rolled 7

Successes % of Rolls
0 5.8805
1 17.0779
2 24.224
3 22.3511
4 15.4115
5 8.5363
6 3.9717
7 1.6518
8 0.5933
9 0.211
10 0.0648
11 0.0189
12 0.0057
13 0.0009
14 0.0005
15 0
16 0.0001
Average # successes 2.798895
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 0.938716
--------------------

Dice Rolled 8

Successes % of Rolls
0 3.8792
1 12.9767
2 21.1154
3 22.5303
4 17.7942
5 11.2394
6 5.9851
7 2.7168
8 1.1189
9 0.4301
10 0.1485
11 0.0439
12 0.0154
13 0.004
14 0.0015
15 0.0004
16 0.0001
17 0.0001
Average # successes 3.201575
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 1.013666
--------------------

Dice Rolled 9

Successes % of Rolls
0 2.6357
1 9.7793
2 17.8297
3 21.5632
4 19.1286
5 13.6017
6 8.139
7 4.1747
8 1.9009
9 0.7796
10 0.311
11 0.1076
12 0.0328
13 0.0108
14 0.0036
15 0.0012
16 0.0002
17 0.0003
18 0.0001
Average # successes 3.598378
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 1.078663
--------------------

Dice Rolled 10

Successes % of Rolls
0 1.736
1 7.186
2 14.795
3 19.7581
4 19.6851
5 15.5073
6 10.3535
7 5.8425
8 2.9288
9 1.3228
10 0.5514
11 0.2207
12 0.0782
13 0.0234
14 0.009
15 0.0018
16 0.0001
17 0.0002
18 0.0001
Average # successes 4.000254
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 1.138339
--------------------

Dice Rolled 11

Successes % of Rolls
0 1.147
1 5.2759
2 11.9168
3 17.6816
4 19.3155
5 16.8295
6 12.2694
7 7.6944
8 4.2267
9 2.0854
10 0.9341
11 0.3821
12 0.1591
13 0.0534
14 0.0183
15 0.0068
16 0.0029
17 0.0006
18 0.0003
19 0
20 0.0002
Average # successes 4.401949
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 1.192044
--------------------

Dice Rolled 12

Successes % of Rolls
0 0.7781
1 3.8321
2 9.4586
3 15.3446
4 18.369
5 17.5639
6 13.948
7 9.4765
8 5.6219
9 3.0103
10 1.4831
11 0.6672
12 0.2776
13 0.1086
14 0.0386
15 0.0145
16 0.0056
17 0.0009
18 0.0006
19 0.0002
20 0.0001
Average # successes 4.799626
Average # of rerolls occurs per initial roll 1.239657
--------------------

Ellery View Member Profile	May 1 2005, 08:04 PM Post #3
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298	You missed the paper I linked to, didn't you? The one titled Fixed Target Number Dice Mechanics? The discussion (and link) is here. And you also apparently missed the tables I posted here, although your tables go a little further out. Also, GunnerJ already posted C code to empirically determine the distribution here. Not that your version is bad or wrong or anything--it's just not as novel as you apparently thought.

blakkie View Member Profile	May 2 2005, 04:53 AM Post #4
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263	Thanks for the links. I must have missed the 4 day or so window those posts appeared in and slid away. Actually, looking at the date it was a combination of a big pile of backlogged paperwork and the 3 day trip to my Grandmother's funeral on Apr 9th that did it. I didn't really think it so much novel. After all it's based loosely on some stuff i did for SR3 Open Tests (to prove my theoretical formulas for Open Tests) to show exactly what it was that so many people had a gut feeling for, that SR3 Open Tests were FUBAR. I didn't expect anyone to have posted that kind of detail here given some of the comments about probabilities here. If you look at those curves (ok, visualize the curves from the data) compared to the SR3 curves you get from modifying TNs a lot of comments i've seen about the downsides to fixed TN doesn't make much sense. Especially with the exploding dice (which smooths things out). I guess i should have known better given how many times people have posted that SR4 means not needing a deck to surf the Matrix. shrug An example is with 2 dice you have a 1 in 20 chance of having at least 3 successes, one more than the dice you start with. You don't have to go that far up in TNs to drop off to approximately 5% chance of a single success, even with a handful of dice. P.S. What would have been nice if the guy that did that paper had working model, not unlik that web dice calculator for SR3.

Ellery View Member Profile	May 2 2005, 05:20 AM Post #5
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298	You have a 5% chance of success at TN 13 or TN14 with two dice. A little more than 5% at TN13, a little less at TN 14. That's a pretty long way up, no? (And yes, open tests are screwy. I didn't like them when they were introduced in SR3, and I'm happy they're gone in SR4.)

blakkie

May 2 2005, 12:44 PM

Post #6

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 1 2005, 11:20 PM)

You have a 5% chance of success at TN 13 or TN14 with two dice. A little more than 5% at TN13, a little less at TN 14. That's a pretty long way up, no?

(And yes, open tests are screwy. I didn't like them when they were introduced in SR3, and I'm happy they're gone in SR4.)

You forget, TN 12 is the same as TN 13. :) I suppose it depends greatly on playstyle, and GM ruling, but i've found that TN 12 isn't that rare. Normally you do try throw more dice at it though. The odds increase close to linearly adding dice, especially at low dice counts.

BTW i think what he's trying to show with that grid of colourful graphs on page 11, is how broad a range of situations are there where there is meaningful competition. It really needs a comparison set of opposed tests Skill A vs. TN B and Skill B vs. TN A. With the above opposed test Skill 6 vs. Skill 4 had an overwhelming chance, and in Skill 6 vs. Skill 3 the Skill 3 opponent might as well stick his head between his legs and kiss it all goodbye.

It does show that using exploding dice provides a wider range of competition. That is mainly due to the increased variablitiy of rolling those dice. Increases in variability of dice rolls generally favours the underdog.

P.S. I just looked through my Open Test sheets, and it looks like I do already have the basic formulas needed in Excel form. I just have to pull them out and change around a couple of constants to variables, and visa versa.

Ellery

May 2 2005, 02:47 PM

Post #7

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

QUOTE

You forget, TN 12 is the same as TN 13.

I'm measuring how high the TN can get to retain a 5% chance. Last I checked, 13 is higher than 12. Not mentioning 12 doesn't have to do with forgetting anything.

QUOTE

I suppose it depends greatly on playstyle, and GM ruling, but i've found that TN 12 isn't that rare.

That's a change of about 8 from "normal". So do you think a threshold of, what, 9 will be common? Or losing 8 dice from your test (where an average person has 6 dice)?

QUOTE

It really needs a comparison set of opposed tests Skill A vs. TN B and Skill B vs. TN A. With the above opposed test Skill 6 vs. Skill 4 had an overwhelming chance

Skill 6 vs. Skill 4 did heavily favor Skill 6 in an opposed test where both skills rolled against the other. But in SR3, you had the option of either having an opposed test against a TN with modifiers (e.g. unarmed combat) or an opposed test against the opponent's skill/ability (e.g. spell resistance). These two options weren't always sensibly applied, but it gave the system more flexibility--if you wanted a test where higher skills were important, you could use one method, and if you wanted one where it wasn't so important, you could use the other.

QUOTE

If you look at those curves (ok, visualize the curves from the data) compared to the SR3 curves you get from modifying TNs a lot of comments i've seen about the downsides to fixed TN doesn't make much sense.

Could you be more specific about which comments don't make sense? Your two examples don't seem to be holding up very well; maybe there are some clearer ones?

blakkie

May 2 2005, 03:36 PM

Post #8

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 2 2005, 08:47 AM)

QUOTE

You forget, TN 12 is the same as TN 13.

I'm measuring how high the TN can get to retain a 5% chance. Last I checked, 13 is higher than 12. Not mentioning 12 doesn't have to do with forgetting anything.

Ummm, my comment was about distance going up the TN scale to get to the 5% range. TN 12 is around 5% (5.4% my chart says). So it seems relavent to the matter at hand. :P

EDIT: BTW 6 dice is only a TN of 17. You don't see that test in armed combat much unless someone is hurt bad and they are desparate. More often in non-combat skill checks, especially when you are hurt, for tricky medical operations, and some technical applications. In combat unless you are in a situation like sniping where Dodge doesn't come into play, alternative choices like running are usually much prefered to relying on a single success at a high TN. For two successes at that same TN 12/13 you need.....9 dice to get in the range of 5%.

QUOTE

I suppose it depends greatly on playstyle, and GM ruling, but i've found that TN 12 isn't that rare.

That's a change of about 8 from "normal". So do you think a threshold of, what, 9 will be common? Or losing 8 dice from your test (where an average person has 6 dice)?

Apparently i see more graduants between rare and common than you do? *shrug* If something comes up a couple or more times during a typical session, i don't call that rare. I don't call it common either. I would hope that having 2 dice to roll 3 successes isn't particularly "common" in SR4. We'll see how the modifiers shake out.

EDIT: What "normal" threshhold will be depends greatly on the size of die increases and number of sources for extra die there are. I do expect the additions to threshholds to generally be smaller in size than what TN increases are. I know you can't go below a '1', but a Threshhold +4 would be extremely drastic.

QUOTE

It really needs a comparison set of opposed tests Skill A vs. TN B and Skill B vs. TN A. With the above opposed test Skill 6 vs. Skill 4 had an overwhelming chance

Skill 6 vs. Skill 4 did heavily favor Skill 6 in an opposed test where both skills rolled against the other. But in SR3, you had the option of either having an opposed test against a TN with modifiers (e.g. unarmed combat) or an opposed test against the opponent's skill/ability (e.g. spell resistance). These two options weren't always sensibly applied, but it gave the system more flexibility--if you wanted a test where higher skills were important, you could use one method, and if you wanted one where it wasn't so important, you could use the other.

By "flexibility" you mean lots of rope to get tangled up in and hang yourself by? ;) Frankly i always found using the opponents Attribute/Skill as the TN a problem, regardless of application. At least i can't think of any place offhand that i liked the feel. It leads to very steep graduations in power.

QUOTE

If you look at those curves (ok, visualize the curves from the data) compared to the SR3 curves you get from modifying TNs a lot of comments i've seen about the downsides to fixed TN doesn't make much sense.

Could you be more specific about which comments don't make sense? Your two examples don't seem to be holding up very well; maybe there are some clearer ones?

LOL

Ellery

May 3 2005, 05:33 AM

Post #9

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

QUOTE (blakkie @ May 1 2005 @ 11:53 PM)

If you look at those curves (ok, visualize the curves from the data) compared to the SR3 curves you get from modifying TNs a lot of comments i've seen about the downsides to fixed TN doesn't make much sense. Especially with the exploding dice (which smooths things out).

An example is with 2 dice you have a 1 in 20 chance of having at least 3 successes, one more than the dice you start with. You don't have to go that far up in TNs to drop off to approximately 5% chance of a single success, even with a handful of dice.

The comments about the fixed TN system that I've seen generally complain that your chance of success drops off too steeply. Given your comment with "especially", that is apparently your meaning here. You are, therefore, drawing a comparison between three successes and not "that far up" in TNs--the implication is that the fixed TN5 system doesn't drop off that rapidly compared to a variable TN system.

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 2 2005 @ 12:20 AM)

You have a 5% chance of success at TN 13 or TN14 with two dice. A little more than 5% at TN13, a little less at TN 14. That's a pretty long way up, no?

Here, I point out that a TN change of 7 or 8 is about the same for a two-dice roller as an increase of two successes. Since 7 or 8 is a lot more than two, it directly demonstrates that the exploding dice have not smoothed things very much. Two points of penalties are a lot less than seven or eight. 3.5 to 4 times less, in fact.

QUOTE (blakkie @ May 2 2005 @ 10:36 AM)

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 2 2005 @ 08:47 AM)

QUOTE

You forget, TN 12 is the same as TN 13.

I'm measuring how high the TN can get to retain a 5% chance. Last I checked, 13 is higher than 12. Not mentioning 12 doesn't have to do with forgetting anything.

Ummm, my comment was about distance going up the TN scale to get to the 5% range. TN 12 is around 5% (5.4% my chart says). So it seems relavent to the matter at hand.

And here you miss the point, unless you weren't originally saying that you were showing that you can have decent flexibility with threshold penalties. If you were, then your job was to show that a moderate change in threshold mapped to a moderate change in TN--so you want to show that the largest possible gap in TN to get the same effect is not so big.

If you weren't saying that you could have flexibility, then you haven't given an example here showing that the comments about the "downsides of fixed TN don't make much sense".

I'm not sure which it is, but either way, the argument is unsupported, either because the example fails or because you're not giving an example.

QUOTE

By "flexibility" you mean lots of rope to get tangled up in and hang yourself by? Frankly i always found using the opponents Attribute/Skill as the TN a problem, regardless of application. At least i can't think of any place offhand that i liked the feel. It leads to very steep graduations in power.

I can think of two that I liked--an opposed strength test to wrest control of an object, and spirit vs. spirit combat. The reason I liked these is because in these instances, where it's really a matter of raw power vs. power, the one with more power ought to have a really good chance of winning.

QUOTE (blakkie)

QUOTE (Ellery)

Could you be more specific about which comments don't make sense? Your two examples don't seem to be holding up very well; maybe there are some clearer ones?

LOL

I take it that this means you don't care to actually discuss the matter on the basis of evidence. Fair enough. I'll stop discussing the matter at all, then. It's not very useful to discuss vagely worded and poorly supported topics with someone who isn't interested in clarifying or strengthening their position.

Critias View Member Profile	May 3 2005, 10:55 AM Post #10
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	What the hell kind of argument is "LOL?"

blakkie

May 3 2005, 01:34 PM

Post #11

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Critias)

What the hell kind of argument is "LOL?"

Arguement? Well obviously not. Nah, it's an expression. I was just expressing amusement at Elley's pre-ejaculation. :)

Critias View Member Profile	May 3 2005, 03:28 PM Post #12
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	Like I said on another thread. It's like Gomer Pyle laughing at Einstein.

blakkie

May 5 2005, 07:36 AM

Post #13

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Critias @ May 3 2005, 09:28 AM)

like

You call THAT an argement???

Yes i'm fully aware that you are stalking me thread to thread grasping at lame excuses to spew crap at me. At least Ellery puts up posts with content. Now it's time for the big boys to talk, so please run along Gomer.

blakkie

May 5 2005, 07:49 AM

Post #14

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Ellery)

I take it that this means you don't care to actually discuss the matter on the basis of evidence. Fair enough. I'll stop discussing the matter at all, then. It's not very useful to discuss vagely worded and poorly supported topics with someone who isn't interested in clarifying or strengthening thier position.

No, not at all.

I think see the base of the misunderstanding here. Judging from your comments i think you've see some of it too. You have different issues with the fixed TN than the one i was initially mentioning. *shrug*

So, if i get the gist of it an issue you have is with a too steep/narrow probability curve compared to variable TNs? I think you are looking in the wrong spot. A lot of what you are talking about as a problem with the system is really an example of how NOT to use the dice rolls. The designers must work to ensure that the mechanics rarely go there, but instead hit the dice system's sweet spots. This holds true for any dicing system, no?

P.S. I still have problems with those "raw power" opposed test examples you give. I don't see them as merely raw power. Arm wrestling is an example. It's a lot about power (speed and strength), but there is also technique and execution behind it. Plus if you can just do a simple compare the skill/attribute numbers up front and be very close to assuring a given roll outcome you get much closer to the stratification of a level system. Over a number of rolls the higher ability going should win on average, but on any single given roll i think it's a bad thing.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

May 5 2005, 07:54 AM

Post #15

Guests

QUOTE (blakkie @ May 5 2005, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (Critias @ May 3 2005, 09:28 AM)

like

You call THAT an argement???

That's not an argument. You know, I know, he knows it, DOGS know it. You're missing the point.

QUOTE (blakkie)

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 2 2005, 11:33 PM)

I take it that this means you don't care to actually discuss the matter on the basis of evidence. Fair enough. I'll stop discussing the matter at all, then. It's not very useful to discuss vagely worded and poorly supported topics with someone who isn't interested in clarifying or strengthening thier position.

No, not at all.

Just so Ellery doesn't have to, I'll ask: Then why the hell did you post LOL as a rebuttal?

blakkie

May 5 2005, 08:04 AM

Post #16

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

QUOTE (blakkie @ May 5 2005, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (Critias @ May 3 2005, 09:28 AM)

like

You call THAT an argement???

That's not an argument. You know, I know, he knows it, DOGS know it. You're missing the point.

Was it absurd for me to post that? Why yes, yes it is. Just as it was absurd for Critias to claim the "LOL" as an argument, or part of an arguement. That, sir, is the point.

QUOTE

QUOTE (blakkie)

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 2 2005, 11:33 PM)

I take it that this means you don't care to actually discuss the matter on the basis of evidence. Fair enough. I'll stop discussing the matter at all, then. It's not very useful to discuss vagely worded and poorly supported topics with someone who isn't interested in clarifying or strengthening thier position.

No, not at all.

Just so Ellery doesn't have to, I'll ask: Then why the hell did you post LOL as a rebuttal?

Look again at that part of Ellery's post. It wasn't part of the arguement itself. It was just him patting himself on the back...prematurely. :P LOL wasn't a "rebuttal". Fluff begat fluff.

Ellery

May 5 2005, 08:05 AM

Post #17

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

QUOTE (blakkie)

I think see the base of the misunderstanding here. Judging from your comments i think you've see some of it too. You have different issues with the fixed TN than the one i was initially mentioning.

I'm not particularly confident that I understand what you intended to initially mention. Can you try again, if the point is still relevant?

QUOTE (blakkie)

So, if i get the gist of it an issue you have is with a too steep/narrow probability curve compared to variable TNs? I think you are looking in the wrong spot. A lot of what you are talking about as a problem with the system is really an example of how NOT to use the dice rolls. The designers must work to ensure that the mechanics rarely go there, but instead hit the dice system's sweet spots. This holds true for any dicing system, no?

Exactly--the mechanics should hit the dice system's sweet spots. Unfortunately, a fixed TN system with only dice/threshold penalties has a pretty narrow sweet spot. It's an intrinsic feature of the mechanics, and it makes for a game that has to be tuned carefully to fall in the sweet spot. Exploding dice make the transition from possible to impossible a little less harsh, but the inherent problem remains: how do you have a penalty or bonus that makes sense for people with low skill and attributes as well as for those with high skill and attributes?

If you cannot fix this problem, you need to make sure everyone's ability is in a narrow range, which raises another problem--it's hard for people to distinguish themselves from each other.

QUOTE (blakkie)

I still have problems with those "raw power" opposed test examples you give. I don't see them as merely raw power. Arm wrestling is an example. It's a lot about power (speed and strength), but there is also technique and execution behind it. Plus if you can just do a simple compare the skill/attribute numbers up front and be very close to assuring a given roll outcome you get much closer to the stratification of a level system.

There might be a better way to roll such tests, but fixed TNs have a different problem. At 4 dice vs. 5 dice, it's not too different from flipping a coin. What if you want a test that's in between flipping a coin and always awarding victory to the person with the higher stat?

QUOTE (blakkie)

Look again at that part of Ellery's post. It wasn't part of the arguement itself. It was just him patting himself on the back...prematurely. LOL wasn't a "rebuttal". Fluff begat fluff.

QUOTE (Ellery)

Could you be more specific about which comments don't make sense? Your two examples don't seem to be holding up very well; maybe there are some clearer ones?

(Emphasis added.) I see a request for information, relevant to the discussion at hand, followed by an explanation of why the request is being made--certainly not the most courteous way to phrase the explanation, but one could also get a lot worse. An in-kind response would have been something like, "They look like they're holding up fine to me."

But I suppose your reaction is understandable if you took my comment as purely a barb. I'm not entirely sure why you'd have taken it that way, but if you can specify what would make it clearer when I actually do want a question answered, I'll try to clarify my posts when writing specifically to you.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

May 5 2005, 08:12 AM

Post #18

Guests

QUOTE (blakkie)

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 5 2005, 01:54 AM)

QUOTE (blakkie @ May 5 2005, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (Critias @ May 3 2005, 09:28 AM)

like

You call THAT an argement???

That's not an argument. You know, I know, he knows it, DOGS know it. You're missing the point.

Was it absurd for me to post that? Why yes, yes it is. Just as it was absurd for Critias to claim the "LOL" as an argument, or part of an arguement. That, sir, is the point.

The point is that when Ellery asked you a direct, and frankly simple, question asking for you to actually back up your claims, you wrote, "LOL." No, it's not an argument. It's an attempt to weasal out of one.

QUOTE

QUOTE (blakkie)

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 2 2005, 11:33 PM)

I take it that this means you don't care to actually discuss the matter on the basis of evidence. Fair enough. I'll stop discussing the matter at all, then. It's not very useful to discuss vagely worded and poorly supported topics with someone who isn't interested in clarifying or strengthening thier position.

No, not at all.

Just so Ellery doesn't have to, I'll ask: Then why the hell did you post LOL as a rebuttal?

Look again at that part of Ellery's post. It wasn't part of the arguement itself. It was just him patting himself on the back...prematurely. :P LOL wasn't a "rebuttal". Fluff begat fluff.

It isn't "fluff" to ask, "Could you be more specific about which comments don't make sense? Your two examples don't seem to be holding up very well; maybe there are some clearer ones?"

blakkie

May 5 2005, 08:39 AM

Post #19

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

It isn't "fluff" to ask, "Could you be more specific about which comments don't make sense? Your two examples don't seem to be holding up very well; maybe there are some clearer ones?"

It is when he's the one that knows the questions he wants addressed. It's just a setup, and i wasn't biting. Besides the LOL wasn't at that part, i just didn't cut that previous sentence out his post out.

He wants a topic change? Fine. But i'm suppose to keep trying to pull out the topics and have him berate me till i get to the one he wants? Nah, i'll just wait till he gets around to pointing the way that he wants to go.

Ellery

May 5 2005, 09:15 AM

Post #20

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

QUOTE

It is when he's the one that knows the questions he wants addressed. It's just a setup

You're the one who claimed that a lot of comments don't make sense--how am I supposed to know which comments you mean? And if you had comments in mind, and had reasons why they didn't make sense, how could you be set up if you specified the comments and the reasons why they didn't make sense?

blakkie

May 5 2005, 09:27 AM

Post #21

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 5 2005, 03:15 AM)

QUOTE

It is when he's the one that knows the questions he wants addressed. It's just a setup

You're the one who claimed that a lot of comments don't make sense--how am I supposed to know which comments you mean? And if you had comments in mind, and had reasons why they didn't make sense, how could you be set up if you specified the comments and the reasons why they didn't make sense?

I was just tossing it out offhand as an example, i remember someone freaking about ending up with only two dice left or having a bit of a raised threshhold when you only start with two dice (Skill 1, Attribute 1, and assuming there are no other dice sources that apply). Ending up there is not in the fixed TN's sweet spot.

EDIT: By that i mean it's going to be extremely difficult for a PC to accomplish something difficult, and the trip from difficult to not so difficult is a short one. But i'm not so sure that is a bad modelling of RL.

I didn't want to go back and try find the specific post at the time. I don't see it now. Hell I can't even seem to find a thread i created about what hacking might look like, it seems to have fallen into the bitbin.

Critias

May 5 2005, 09:36 AM

Post #22

Freelance Elf

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714

QUOTE (blakkie)

Yes i'm fully aware that you are stalking me thread to thread grasping at lame excuses to spew crap at me. At least Ellery puts up posts with content. Now it's time for the big boys to talk, so please run along Gomer.

I'm not stalking you. You just never shut up. Glance at the SR4 forum, and the six or eight most recent posts all say "blakkie."

It's not like I'm following you, and carefully searching for something stupid you've said. I'm stepping in your posts, and then sometimes taking a second to scrape the bottom of my shoe so I feel better.

blakkie

May 5 2005, 09:49 AM

Post #23

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Ellery @ May 5 2005, 02:05 AM)

There might be a better way to roll such tests, but fixed TNs have a different problem. At 4 dice vs. 5 dice, it's not too different from flipping a coin. What if you want a test that's in between flipping a coin and always awarding victory to the person with the higher stat?

Well if you are SR3 you just go off and create a wholely differet kind of game system mechanic to throw on the pile of the rest you had to learn. :love:

Actually if you go back to your friend's page 11 you'll see that is 50/50 if the 5 dice have to gain one more success to "win", but if it is the 4 dice that needs the extra success to "win" it is more like 35%/65% judging from the colour hue. A 2:1 odds is hardly a coin toss. If a "tie" is a possible outcome it will sit somewhere between those two, which i'm guessing would be curiously close to the ration 5:4. I wonder if it is exactly that? Hmmm, doubt it.

There are ways to make it a starker difference between a die or two. The less dice total the greater difference each die makes. If that is the kind of test you want, you lower the die sources. If you want it smoother you raise the possible die sources.

** I'm working on the assumption that SR4 will use exploding 6s, and will the rest of this thread unless otherwised mentioned. I'd be disappointed if it doesn't.

EDIT: Don't have time right now to get to the other parts of that post.

blakkie

May 5 2005, 10:10 AM

Post #24

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Critias @ May 5 2005, 03:36 AM)

QUOTE (blakkie @ May 5 2005, 02:36 AM)

Yes i'm fully aware that you are stalking me thread to thread grasping at lame excuses to spew crap at me. At least Ellery puts up posts with content. Now it's time for the big boys to talk, so please run along Gomer.

I'm not stalking you. You just never shut up. Glance at the SR4 forum, and the six or eight most recent posts all say "blakkie."

It's not like I'm following you, and carefully searching for something stupid you've said. I'm stepping in your posts, and then sometimes taking a second to scrape the bottom of my shoe so I feel better.

You definately want to clean that shoe off or you'll have a hard time getting the taste out of your mouth. :P I haven't posted for a couple of days, but this thread had only one post right after my last one then, and still the thread was the fifth or sixth (+/-) most recent thread updated. So is it just me not shutting up, is it just a slow board, or is it that in the past i really pissed you off and you just have to DO something about that? You know, do something like slay the Evul Villian that i am. :)

Perhaps if you didn't drag so much baggage thread to thread i wouldn't use the word stalking?

P.S. I only have threads 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. After that i'm quite a ways down. Of course is that really that surprising when i log on and fire off a cluster of postings, then head off for a while? But don't worry, you'll be able to rest your heroic, Evul busting fingers for a while. I'm pretty sure my schedule will keep me away for a few days.

Ellery

May 5 2005, 06:07 PM

Post #25

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

QUOTE

I was just tossing it out offhand as an example, i remember someone freaking about ending up with only two dice left or having a bit of a raised threshhold when you only start with two dice (Skill 1, Attribute 1, and assuming there are no other dice sources that apply). Ending up there is not in the fixed TN's sweet spot.

I agree that using two dice isn't in the system's sweet spot, but since it's possible to have attribute 1, skill 1, or attribute 2, it seems like a valid concern to me. Or are you saying that there is something about your probability tables that allays this concern?

QUOTE

There are ways to make it a starker difference between a die or two. The less dice total the greater difference each die makes. If that is the kind of test you want, you lower the die sources. If you want it smoother you raise the possible die sources.

This is true--but it's better to have it smoother and have an option for making modest differences have a larger impact. I suppose you could achieve this by rolling 2x, 4x, or a higher factor times the attribute in question--although note that the difference between 4 vs. 5 and 16 vs. 20 is pretty minimal (see p.11 of the dice mechanics paper). It's better to just admit that there's not such a huge difference between attributes separated by one point, and allow a wider range of attributes. But if attributes are limited to 1-6, there's not much of a range. This is an area where one can compensate for the fixed TN system's inflexibility; it just doesn't look like that's happened.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »