Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: David Johansen on January 16, 2011, 06:18:49 PM
-
Bah! They should play Lands of Adventure where you work out the leverage force of a weapon based on its length and calculate skills with quadratic equations sometime.
-
Bah! They should play Lands of Adventure where you work out the leverage force of a weapon based on its length and calculate skills with quadratic equations sometime.
I understand finding one of the four copies of that game if very hard, cuz the rest are buried under 15 years of shelf dust.
Simplicity does not mean loest common denominator nor stupid. Simple is normally the right idea.
-
Bah! They should play Lands of Adventure where you work out the leverage force of a weapon based on its length and calculate skills with quadratic equations sometime.
Which is almost my point. They'll be playing something else. ;)
-
Well, that's part of the problem already right? People who can't pass third grade math are already playing something else. So if we're stuck with the educated and intelligent gamers why restrict ourselves from simple and elegant solutions that involve a little math?
My complaint about averaging has always been the hanging decimal results. I hate those things. Very untidy! Definitely one of the reasons I still prefer Spacemaster to my own Galaxies in Shadow :D
-
Simple and elegant are great, but experience has indicated that adding any amount of numbers is fine, multiplying and dividing by whole numbers is fine, but 150% or 2/3 is asking too much.
-
GURPS uses 150% damage multipliers heavily and seems to have its niche.
-
I love 150%. . .lots of people seem to hate doing "math".
-
Well, that's part of the problem already right? People who can't pass third grade math are already playing something else. So if we're stuck with the educated and intelligent gamers why restrict ourselves from simple and elegant solutions that involve a little math?
Because I understand the business and marketing side of the equation. If you are a business man you want to sell your product to a million idiots, not a thousand geniuses.
I hate the fact that most consumers are sheep and incapable of determining the fact that they are being herded into buying something inferior simply because it's the intellectual equivalent of "shiny". But if you are a business man, or someone in marketing, it's gospel (and I've mentioned on these boards before my opinion of the collective human race suffers due to that fact).
I really don't like it. I often agree with the principle of what people are talking about here... but if you want your product to be successful you better be ready to whip out the shiny objects.
-
The last time I "whipped out my shiney objects" I spent the night in jail :D
No, I know the limitations, believe me, that's one of the reasons I generally design simpler games. Yes I have a big fat d% fantasy game on my hard drive but most people just don't want the "complexity".
Actually if we ever do come around to a revision I have a fairly big collection of skill and stat blurbs already written. :)
-
You are cross threading. . . . ;)
Seriously, is 125% or 150% so scary, or is it really just too much to ask?
-
You are cross threading. . . . ;)
Seriously, is 125% or 150% so scary, or is it really just too much to ask?
I love the "I don't want to have to figure out 2d100..." I mean, really? You can't do the mathematical equivalent of x5? Are you a gamer???
-
Do you know how many scaling issues can be solved in game design with a little well applied multiplication?
Mind you, some effects can be duplicated with additional rolls but even so, I think rping with AI's would sure help to get around some rules design issues. But then even if you sit the CPUs around a table and play someone'll tell you you're just playing a computer game.
-
I'm honestly asking. . . .
I get why RM1 to RM2 the -20 was changed from -20% to -20, as with a stack of modifiers, the order in which you took them mattered if they were subjective -20% and didn't matter if they were objective -20. . .
But do gamers, in the market today, find something like 66% or 125% just too much math to do?
-
Yeah, I'm afraid so. Schools haven't focussed on fundamentals for a long time now here in North America. My son's in grade three and I overheard him telling another parent how they wouldn't be doing flash cards or spelling lists in his class because he wants it to be a safe environment for learning that won't harm the child's self esteem.
Yeah, the future's lookin' really bright...
-
I'm honestly asking. . . .
I get why RM1 to RM2 the -20 was changed from -20% to -20, as with a stack of modifiers, the order in which you took them mattered if they were subjective -20% and didn't matter if they were objective -20. . .
But do gamers, in the market today, find something like 66% or 125% just too much math to do?
If it is IMHO you just have a spot on the sheet where it is already worked out so you do not have to do it that often.
MDC
-
Excel fill ins can be quadratic equations or differential calculus, and nobody using them would care if the work was done for them.
But if an effect was +33% concussion hits. . .seemingly not so big a deal in chargen as it's done once, or once per level up. . .but on damage? "You mean I have to figure out 33% of 13 and add it to 13?" seems problematic for some people on the fly repeatedly during combat.
It also does curve back to why RM1 to RM2 got rid of that. . .if you have 20% damage reduction, and I have 30% damage increase, which gets applied first. . .yours 10-2=8+2=10 vs mine 10+3=13-2=11 creates a lot of room for problems.
-
I think it is all about complexity compared to the believed benefit. If the rules give pedagogic examples and makes the player feel the complexity is motivated then you can get away with anything. RM never had much math in really, but the math that was there had no RM book that tried to explain it with good examples and even more important there was no real motivation. People with higher education liked what they saw and said...this is how I would model stuff, while the rest looked it did not get the fine design points and said needless complexity.
-
Because I understand the business and marketing side of the equation. If you are a business man you want to sell your product to a million idiots, not a thousand geniuses.
That's the dream. The reality is that unless you've millions to throw into advertising, you have no hope of changing the fact that the million idiots will be buying D&D if they buy an RPG at all.
So if you can't become filthy, filthy rich, how about commercial survival? A jackal doesn't survive by being a lion, it survives by being the best jackal it can be. ICE needs to decide what niche it is going after and fill the heck out that niche. And remember, people who can do math are more likely to have some money to spend on games even after they grow up.
-
I think RM will be more successful than it has been in the past now that there's someone else at the wheel. The first and second incarnations of ICE had the buck stopping at the same person and, as much as there were a myriad of issues facing the company, there was one major problem that ensured RM would slowly decline in commercial viability both times. I won't bother getting into what exactly that was, but suffice to say I don't see it happening again with the third incarnation of "ICE" (i.e. Guild Comp Pub).
There will likely be some hurdles in traditional marketing when you have a print on demand product, but at least someone will be actually thinking about marketing in the first place. For example, a booth at GenCon is actually fairly reasonable. For a couple thousand dollars you could pick up a 10'x15' footprint in the merchant room. As far as manning the booth there are a select few people that could be counted on to actually show up and man the booth (if they commit to go) so long as there was something provided to stock it. Showing up to GenCon is going to get you some minor publicity right off the bat. The same people volunteering to man the booth could also potentially run an event, hopefully something at least attempting to reach for the clamor that Run Out The Guns caused.
-
Right. But you need some publicity/advertising to carve out a (relatively) small niche. That is not going to give you the ability to compete head-to-head with D&D for "the masses" in fantasy RPG gaming. You need something to appeal to the ones who will consider trying something else in the first place. "We can handle three digit numbers" sort of subtle elitism might actually be the trick. Unless they find out about HERO, in which case they'll never consider Rolemaster the game for people who can do math again.
-
I have some ideas for advertising that would specifically target D&D users and some that target gamers in general. But I think I'll leave the details for potential future 'official' discussions.
RM used to have some very cool advertisements. Things like a crit text of "Foes Skeleton is reduced to a gelatinous pulp. Try a spatula." followed by "Monsters don't kill characters - Criticals kill Characters". Although, I think I'd reverse the 'character' and 'monster' part these days. :)
-
I suggested at one point that the old inside front cover ads from Dragon were the main touch stone to Rolemaster for most gamers. I got told it was a great idea but nothing was ever done with it.
-
Excel fill ins can be quadratic equations or differential calculus, and nobody using them would care if the work was done for them.
But if an effect was +33% concussion hits. . .seemingly not so big a deal in chargen as it's done once, or once per level up. . .but on damage? "You mean I have to figure out 33% of 13 and add it to 13?" seems problematic for some people on the fly repeatedly during combat.
It also does curve back to why RM1 to RM2 got rid of that. . .if you have 20% damage reduction, and I have 30% damage increase, which gets applied first. . .yours 10-2=8+2=10 vs mine 10+3=13-2=11 creates a lot of room for problems.
IMHO yes. Some people have a fear of math and panic when they see something, that just throws them for a moment. So yes 20% damage reduction is changed to reduce damage by 4 but always take X.
Also the idea is to open up the game to those who fear and do not fear math or any other specific aspect of game play. But this does limit some thing for the game in general.
MDC
-
Jeez! How many folks out there think calculating 150% of a number is hard maths?
Its not integration!
I'm not a natural at maths, thats why I use a calculator. Quick, easy and correct. I really don't understand the big deal. I get that, from a business point of view, you want to sell your product to the widest possible target audience, but do people really freak out when asked to halve, double or third a simple number? How do they function in day to day life?
-
How do they function in day to day life?
Good question. But the answer might scare me more than the question itself.
Then again I have trouble spelling so I use an aid to help me with that.
MDC
-
It's surprising how little arithmetic one needs to do to survive everyday life. You might not get the best deals in the supermarket, and you're maybe not going to put yourself in the best tax situation, but maths isn't really a survival skill for many people, I reckon.
-
Then again I have trouble spelling so I use an aid to help me with that.
For years I've done most of the game math in my head, faster than my players could do it with a calculator. That never stopped me from always having a calculator handy when I game.
Using an aid is one thing. Deciding you're not going to use twitter, or text messaging, or email, or internet forums, or post-it notes, or snail mail, or etc, etc. because it's "too much spelling" is another.
:o
-
Deciding you're not going to use twitter, or text messaging, or email, or internet forums, or post-it notes, or snail mail, or etc, etc. because it's "too much spelling" is another.
:o
Observation suggests that spelling facility is not an impediment to many people's use of twitter, texting, email or internerd forums.
-
Touche!
;D
-
Almost any amount of math you have to do while playing is too much math. It interferes with the flow of the game if you have to pause and do math constantly, calculator or not. Computer games has no problem with this, all math is done in the background, seamlessly, but pen and paper games has a major problem with math. In my opinion, good pen and paper games should try to reduce math which is 'left to the reader' as much as possible. Rolemaster has tables and charts, which is great way to reduce the need for math - just roll the dice and look up the result - it's a kind of magic. :)
Moriarty, B.Sc. in mathematics
-
So math you do occasionally, like on the character sheet process, is OK, but not in play?
-
I love doing mental arithmetic in-play. Keeps my mind active.
-
Almost any amount of math you have to do while playing is too much math. It interferes with the flow of the game if you have to pause and do math constantly, calculator or not. Computer games has no problem with this, all math is done in the background, seamlessly, but pen and paper games has a major problem with math. In my opinion, good pen and paper games should try to reduce math which is 'left to the reader' as much as possible. Rolemaster has tables and charts, which is great way to reduce the need for math - just roll the dice and look up the result - it's a kind of magic. :)
Moriarty, B.Sc. in mathematics
I think for you the roll your dice and have a GM with a computer program do all the math is the ticket. Maybe even a web phone app to link to it so players can input there info directly. And of course the GM has to approve the entry before calculation, that way it prevents most data entry errors.
I guess it would also be required to have a roll back feature so if the GM did say ok to a roll of 60000 instead of a roll of 60, the program could take that entry out and not have to start combat again from scratch.
MDC
-
I love doing mental arithmetic in-play. Keeps my mind active.
Especially after a few adult beverages. I also have noticed when I GM that as things get later the math can tend to get fuzzy-er but I have learned to live with it and it is all in the name of fun.
MDC
-
So math you do occasionally, like on the character sheet process, is OK, but not in play?
Yes sort of, but I think math should be eliminated or reduced whenever possible, including during character generation and leveling up. It's OK to leave some occasional math to the reader if its the only way to gain maximum realism, detail and scalability. It's not OK to leave occasional math to the reader because the game designer did not have the time or the means to make a table or chart that does the same thing better without math.
-
Problem with charts, of course, is that some people hate them. A chart with the generating formula would cover both bases, I guess.
-
Or two options that do about the same thing.
MDC
-
Or two options that do about the same thing.
MDC
Certainly, where the chart deviates from a formula (which is often the case).
-
So math you do occasionally, like on the character sheet process, is OK, but not in play?
In which case everyone should hate any game that uses dice...? :help:
-
From a practical business standpoint, I'd guess (please note that it is just a guess) that as long as you stay with addition and subtraction you're okay, and in most cases multiplication. While I personally have no issues with doing division, percentages or fractions in my head, I'd be willing to bet that at that point you start losing potential customer base.
Sad? Absolutely. Nonetheless, I suspect if you were able to build a statistical base to check it, that's what I believe you'd find.
-
I did open this with the proviso that addition, subtraction, and multiplication by whole numbers appear to be fine. . .division by whole numbers appears to be tolerable. . .So rolling dice and adding them to a bonus seems to fall into the green zone.
-
I think that it easy to forget that rounding is actually something that in essence is hard. Like for instance 2.5...should that be rounded to 2 or 3? Many people would say that you of course should round to 3, but that gives a bias. More correct would be to round up and down half the time.
-
I think that it easy to forget that rounding is actually something that in essence is hard. Like for instance 2.5...should that be rounded to 2 or 3? Many people would say that you of course should round to 3, but that gives a bias. More correct would be to round up and down half the time.
I was always taught that when rounding .5, look at the digit before it, and round to an even digit. So, 2.5 rounds to 2, and 3.5 rounds to 4. Of course, this presumes no other rules are in play. Bankers typically round down when it's not in their interest and round up if it is in their interest. Many game rules specify that you "always round up" or "always round down".
-
I think that it easy to forget that rounding is actually something that in essence is hard. Like for instance 2.5...should that be rounded to 2 or 3? Many people would say that you of course should round to 3, but that gives a bias. More correct would be to round up and down half the time.
I was always taught that when rounding .5, look at the digit before it, and round to an even digit. So, 2.5 rounds to 2, and 3.5 rounds to 4. Of course, this presumes no other rules are in play. Bankers typically round down when it's not in their interest and round up if it is in their interest. Many game rules specify that you "always round up" or "always round down".
Was that in math class or from a RPG?
MDC
-
Was that in math class or from a RPG?
The rounding to an even number? Math class.
-
I was taught to round up if the number was .5 or higher and round down if it was .4999 (repeating) or lower. Can you give me some more info on the math class? The reason I ask is that it is a very strange way to round numbers.
MDC
-
when rounding, I always go 0,1,2,3,4 down, and 5,6,7,8,9 up. . .unless there's a "round down" in place so even .9 is down, or a round up for even .1 is up. . .
-
Rounding x.5 to the nearest even is designed to eliminate statistical anomalies. If you consistently round x.5 up, you end up over-estimating the average. For example, the average of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 should be 3. But, if you round each value up you get 2, 3, 4, 5, which average to 3.5, which rounds to 4! But, if you round to the nearest even, you get 2, 2, 4, 4, which average to 3, the correct answer. Hence, the even rule. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Round_half_to_even for more details.
-
The only time not to round .5 up is in cases where aggregate rounding error matters and you have numbers where .5 (or .25., .5, .75) is the only decimal part you have. If you always round up in that case, you get cumulative error that consistently leads to numbers that are too high. In those cases only, it is better to alternate rounding up and rounding down. I doubt there is any case in a game where this would be advisable. If you have 3.5 either round up to 4 or terminate to 3, just do it consistently.
-
(we close in on reaching the point of "too much math" heh)
-
NONSENSE THERE CAN NEVER BE TOO MUCH MATH!!! :D
-
Rounding x.5 to the nearest even is designed to eliminate statistical anomalies. If you consistently round x.5 up, you end up over-estimating the average. For example, the average of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 should be 3. But, if you round each value up you get 2, 3, 4, 5, which average to 3.5, which rounds to 4! But, if you round to the nearest even, you get 2, 2, 4, 4, which average to 3, the correct answer. Hence, the even rule. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Round_half_to_even (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Round_half_to_even) for more details.
I was taught never to round until the end or the math is all done. of course if you round in the middle you will have many problems. That is why you work with a raw data set and not something that is already manipulated in some way.
MDC
-
If I need a series of rounded numbers, then a total, rounded. . .
Set excel to total to the right, set decimal to 0, add the right column to the bottom, set decimal to 0. . .rounds each line in display, but adds the actual raw unrounded figures, and rounds the result.
-
Given the computer's binary representation for numbers, rounding is a necessary evil, and often performed on halves. So, in the real world, not much of an issue. But, in the digital world, rounding can be a big problem.
-
Ok, this entire conversation has become an example of to much math.
In fact it's reminding me of Aftermath with its 50 or so hit locations: overkill.
Now, the memory of giving that game away is a pleasent one, though I wanted to keep the box at the time (kids are weird). I'm sure those physics geeks played the tarnation out of it.
-
Playing in an Aftermath game right now. . .the hit locations are one of the good things about it. . .it's just a picture with numbers on it. . .the character development/experience mechanics are kinda "meh" to me.
Back to rounding logic.
How about the tyranny of the d20 in percentile systems?
i.e. the fact that almost everything is done in 5s?
RM does go away from 5s in diminishing returns skill ranks, and RM2 smoothed stats or RMSS stats. . .but a lot of the system works in 5s.
I get the logic of the drunkard's rule, and don't object to rounding the final result to 5s if you really like round results. . .
But everything rounded to the nearest 5, does contribute to some problems like bonus stacking. . .if the smallest bonus is a 5, then if you get three of any bonus, the smallest it can be is +15. . .and if the increments are in 5s, then three level two bonuses are +30. . .it rapidly scales up and out of control. . . . .because you can't have a +3, or a +12.
-
Playing in an Aftermath game right now. . .the hit locations are one of the good things about it. . .it's just a picture with numbers on it. . .the character development/experience mechanics are kinda "meh" to me.
Back to rounding logic.
How about the tyranny of the d20 in percentile systems?
i.e. the fact that almost everything is done in 5s?
RM does go away from 5s in diminishing returns skill ranks, and RM2 smoothed stats or RMSS stats. . .but a lot of the system works in 5s.
I get the logic of the drunkard's rule, and don't object to rounding the final result to 5s if you really like round results. . .
But everything rounded to the nearest 5, does contribute to some problems like bonus stacking. . .if the smallest bonus is a 5, then if you get three of any bonus, the smallest it can be is +15. . .and if the increments are in 5s, then three level two bonuses are +30. . .it rapidly scales up and out of control. . . . .because you can't have a +3, or a +12.
I have +7 swords or +6 DB armor. I achieved this by making a simple rule that reduced the time needed to manufacture an item by making the bonus less than the maximum allowed by the spell.
So a Weapon I can make a +1, +2, +3, +4 and +5 weapon. +1 magic weapons are far more common in my world than any other as they take less time, cost less to make and confer the same advantages as a magical +5 weapon other than the bonus (same level to resist destruction, able to strike special creatures, etc).
Of course, I depise big numbers just for the sake of big numbers. My work as a machinist also taught me their are many paths to finishing a job, and not all produce the same quality.
I miss that job.