Topic: Probability

[Forkbeard]

I couldn't agree more. Trouble is, if each of us goes off and makes it better in our own way, none of us are playing the same system 

One of my players was discussing/arguing something with some other player a while back, only trouble is they were telling this person something I'd made up, not something from the rules

I wouldn't be so irritated by these faults if I knew that there was some rationale behind them, but I'm convinced half of it was created by flipping a coin.

I posted here about weapon breakage, and I think something responded with "they seem about right". Maybe I got that wrong. But it begs the question how does a person living in 2009 know what medievil weapon breakage was like???

What I'd hoped for is "ah yes, we use the medieval breakage figures from Imperial College London, which are based on the figures laid out in 1130 by the Venerable Lord William of Saxony"

James

[rdanhenry]

I couldn't agree more. Trouble is, if each of us goes off and makes it better in our own way, none of us are playing the same system 

It'd be RM2 all over again!

[Forkbeard]

Let's not forget those companions

I implemented the RMCVII IDS system, did I get that right? It meant that every module I used had to have the stats amended... nightmare. Still RMSS implemented pretty much the same thing.

[markc]

 I am just guessing at how they created the system but I think they might have said ok we want a chance for weapons to break. So lets use the attack roll to provide a number range. Now pick the weapon that should have the lowest breakage number and go from there. Table goes to group for editing and discussion.
 Well that was ok until some ones favorite weapon was broken and said well lets make it based on materials also so if you use better materials then it has a smaller chance of breaking.

 Well thats my guess anyway as I was not there. I also like the way it works in my game but I know quite a few people leave it out of there Campaigns.

MDC

[pastaav]

Winterknight... agreed, but that doesn't explain why they chose to do it that way.

You can equally ask yourself why they added the Unmodified Success result. It is not like there is any realism for a flat chance of success no matter the difficulty.

Basically I think they thought more about enjoyment when playing the game than getting the last digit right. It is not like the players will roll enough dice to notice the difference between the Spectacular 0.0085% and the Absolute 0.0037% since their bonus and penalties will differ over time.

The art of engineering is not about getting the perfect answer, but knowing when you are close enough so that the remaining errors doesn't matter anymore. I am pretty convinced game design is pretty much the same.

The number of decimals shown was for ease of access. Actual figures can be provided.

Please do, it is in general very hard to deduct if you did any error with just the provided functions. Showing how you used them give the audience better feel for what you did.

Anyway I suspect the weird probabilities can be traced back to the discontinuity that happens when you need one more open ended roll. There is one of these every 100 or so, and there is clear similarity between your probabilities that is 100 apart. I am too lazy to verify this thesis, but it sounds plausible.

[Forkbeard]

You can equally ask yourself why they added the Unmodified Success result. It is not like there is any realism for a flat chance of success no matter the difficulty.

Yep, that's stupid too.

The art of engineering is not about getting the perfect answer, but knowing when you are close enough so that the remaining errors doesn't matter anymore. I am pretty convinced game design is pretty much the same.

There's a phrase in the UK that springs to mind... bollocks  Close enough... pull the other one. If they are close enough, where's the logic? There's a difference between engineering with some calculations that are "close enough", and just making it up as you go along.

Please do, it is in general very hard to deduct if you did any error with just the provided functions. Showing how you used them give the audience better feel for what you did.

I tell you what, you show me Ironcrown's formulae, or the basis for their calculations and we'll compare.
It's not "very hard" to DEDUCE, the figures were clearly rounded to 2 dps, plus the forumulae aren't exactly hard to type into Excel 

So in brief you're saying you accept whatever Ironcrown did without any proof because that's what you think is "engineering", but my calculations you need to see working out and figures to maximum precision

The weird probs. are affected by the gaps somewhat, but as Winterknight pointed out before, the distribution defines the area under the curve. It's not voodoo, sorry "engineering", it's maths.

There's a word in the UK... oh yeah, I've said that already.

James

[Trond]

In my opinion, there are many posts here that have some good points. I think one of the great flaws of RM is that they did not improve these "hiccups" with each new version of the game. Notice that the (in my opinion) brilliant rules of "Artesia, Adventures in the Known World" have picked up some of the best ideas of RM, but added a lot of common sense based on experience with other RPGs. If you go back to the games from around thirty years ago, you will see that back then, game designers expected players to swallow the rules no matter if some of them were nonsense. Nowadays, people expect consistency and more common sense.

Still, Artesia lacks the flavorful combat and maneuver charts of RM (although these could need an overhaul). I have run both Artesia and RM with a group (simplifying both a bit, and using Combat Companion with RM). The players actually liked both, but for different reasons. As Pastaav noted, the players hardly noticed some of the inconsistencies in the tables, partly because I (as GM) was interpreting the charts. This does not mean that these details are not annoying, though. However, the players really liked the brutal combat and the possibility of in-between results in RM.

[Forkbeard]

I think one of the great flaws of RM is that they did not improve these "hiccups" with each new version of the game.

Like pretty everything else in this world... one step forward two steps back. Or, if you're Microsoft, ten steps back 

[Trond]

Well, in all fairness, I think Combat Companion was a step forward. I really like the new attack tables. Do you guys agree?

[vroomfogle]

I don't care for the linear nature of the CC attack tables.   Spend some time looking at the tables and you will notice two things:

- Every armor rating is simply shifted from the column next to it
- Every table follows the exact same pattern

The only variation is the number of hits, the starting point of when hits start, and how quickly criticals rise from A through to E.   What this means is that the armor rating columns are actually superfluous as with this approach you could have made a single column and just made armor changes in DB.

Furthermore the nuances between armor types are completely gone.   Look at the old arms law tables - chain was not as good vs. arrow attacks as against other types of weapon for instance.  In the CC the relative protectiveness of armor is exactly the same against any attack type.   In other words the difference between chain and plate is exactly the same for all attacks.   In addition there are no longer any reverse attack tables - even Martial Arts Sweeps & Throws is now more effective against unarmored opponents.    Plate armor offers the same benefits vs Electricity and Sweeps as it does vs any other type of attack.

To me one of the draws of Arms Law were these nuances - differences between weapons and armor so that there was no single best armor or best weapon.   In CC there is a simple linear progression - each armor type is better then the last in all cases and it is easy to determine the overall best weapons.

[Greyaxe]

Yes it is done to aid the Tolkien Ents.

To help them finding their entwives, you know...

All the trues know the entwives became black trolls (Tolkien Enterprises)