Rolling mechanic question

[lordredraven]

I know there was a topic on this sometime in the recent past, but I can't seem to find it now. I know the standard way to roll to hit is 11 +(ocv-dcv of target) or less.

I have seen it be reworked to as

OCV +11 - (3d6) to determine the maximum DCV that you would have hit.

My question is could it be expressed mathematically the same as:

OCV + 3d6 vs DCV +11 ?

I am thinking that is the same number-wise, but I am sure that someone here has already worked out the math. I am trying to simplify the math for some new players that have experience with d20 style roll + mod vs target number style rolling. As well as this would allow you to keep a dcv somewhat hidden from the players

Thanks.

[ghost-angel]

1) Just stating up front I'm not a fan of the Roll High Mechanic from the outset, and really can't see why the players would have a hard time subtracting the 3D6.... but I've over estimated player intelligence before. . .

Another method to keep the DCV "somewhat hidden" is to allocate Skill Levels different on a Phase to Phase basis (thus one Phase everyone hits him at DCV6 or less, and he dumps his CSLs into DCV the next phase to avoid some hurt and suddenly that DCV7 or less roll misses . . . )

And Combat Maneuvers alter things a bit around too, good description will prevent the players from realizing he used a "Martial Strike" on that attack.

[lordredraven]

The problem with the basic roll mechanics that I have seen, in either of the two version that involve subtraction is that they create a difference in the roll expectation for each type of roll. Players want to roll low for some things, like to hit and high for other things, like damage. It is the equivalent of ThAC0 for old D&D. The system became much better when everything becomes that same direction. Roll high for everything. Easier to remember.

[ghost-angel]

I don't see that problem personally.

Damage: High.
Everything Else: Low.

Can't be that bloody hard. It just can't.

[Duke Bushido]

What he said.


And GA, I really need to spread some rep around; I'm falling behind on your tab ;)

[rjcurrie]

I've never understood the problem with rolling low for success-based rolls and rolling high for damage/effects either.

[Sean Waters]

Well I for one understand it perfectly. Moreover as a GM introducing players familiar with other systems, low rolling is one of the biggest barriers to understanding and entry. Mathematical difficulty has nothing to do with it. Although mathematically it is easier.

The way we do it at present (and always have), what you are doing is adding the 3d6 to the DCV of the opponent and trying to keep under OCV+11. Just seems odd that you are rolling for the enemy.

Try this, Lordreraven:

High roller

Roll 3d6, add OCV. You have to beat DCV + 10. In fact you might want to start recording DCV with the 10 already added in.

Now to me, that's easy and intuitive.

Actually I was thinking the other day aboutt his, and I was completely going off on one. What I might resurrect and take out for a spin is the idea of replacing the 3d6 roll with a 4d6 roll: 2 green dice, 2 red. The green dice are positive, the red dice are negative, so you get a result of -10 to +10, centring on 0.

Then we just add the result to OCV, and compare to DCV. None of this '11' business at all, just a positive or negative modifier to your OCV to compare to DCV. Equal the DCV target and you hit.

Feels really good.

[Tonio]

I think it all comes down to the psychological factor... With the current system, you can't really get "into" rolling high as good (or low as good), since it depends on the situation. I don't think that system is hard to "understand", I think it's hard to get a general feeling for dice-rolling with that system. In d20 (or any other "consistent high-rolling" system), you roll the dice, see high numbers, and instinctively feel good about it. With HERO System's dice-rolling system, you either roll dice, see high numbers, think about what you're rolling for, then decide whether it's good or bad (no real "gut, instinctive feel"), or stop and think about what you're rolling, formulate an expectation or desire, roll, then feel good or bad depending on whether your expectation or desire was fulfilled or not (not a lasting, inherent feeling, but one based on a recently formed, and extremely short-term, expectation or desire).

Of course, this can all change if, for example, you use clear, blue, regular-sized dice for skill, attack, etc. (all the roll-under's), and big, opaque, red dice for damage and effect (the high-roll's). Or in a high-powered campaign, you can get used to wanting high numbers on large quantities of dice, but low numbers on small quantities (3, to be precise) of dice.

[Netzilla]

In regards to adding 11 to the OCV or 10 to the DCV and recording them that way on the character sheet:

You'll want to be careful doing this as the modifiers that take OCV/DCV down to 1/2 or 0 do so to the base OCV/DCV only. I can see someone getting confused when applying out of combat, blinded and similar penalties.

For example, let's say your preferred method is OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV hit and you have players record OCV + 11 as their character's OCV. So, they have an 8 OCV, and it's written on the character sheet as 17. When they attempt to punch someone while blinded, they might believe that they should be rolling 9 - 3d6 rather than the correct 15 - 3d6.

As to the whole high/low rolling thing, we've introduced a handful of new players in our group (we've been together 10+ years and gain/lose folks every 2 or 3) and several of us have run demo games at cons and we don't run into any problems with folks understanding the 'roll low to-hit/roll high for damage' mechanic.

If, for some reason, you're worried about subtraction slowing the game down, that might happen a little at first, but most people adapt pretty quickly in my experience.

One thing I have done for newer or math-phobic players is create a quick-reference sheet for the Hero system. One of the things on it is a revised 'Attack Matrix' that lets you cross-index your die roll with your OCV to find out what DCV you hit.

If you want to take a look at my 'cheat sheet', you can find hit here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=447486&postcount=8). For more ideas, here the link to the full thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21964).

[Sean Waters]

Good point about halving of OCV/DCV, Netzilla, although given that happens only a few times per combat, at most, and you use DCV every roll, I don't see it as a big problem.

Frankly (and I still use Hero approved rolling) what sticks in my craw about this:

OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV

Is that it is the same as this:

OCV + 11 = DCV + 3d6

You roll high and the bad guys benefit. I get around this by trying not to think about it.

Moreover the mechanic we use can be useful if you are the sort of freak who likes to relate roll to damage: it is much more intuitive with low roll=good. That's a couple fo other threads though.

So: 4d6 - what do you think?

[Tonio]

Good point about halving of OCV/DCV, Netzilla, although given that happens only a few times per combat, at most, and you use DCV every roll, I don't see it as a big problem.

Frankly (and I still use Hero approved rolling) what sticks in my craw about this:

OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV

Is that it is the same as this:

OCV + 11 = DCV + 3d6

You roll high and the bad guys benefit. I get around this by trying not to think about it.

Moreover the mechanic we use can be useful if you are the sort of freak who likes to relate roll to damage: it is much more intuitive with low roll=good. That's a couple fo other threads though.

So: 4d6 - what do you think?

I meant to comment on that, but I forgot. =/
Serves me right for trolling the boards at work, hee hee.

I like the concept. A lot. I haven't worked out the math (I'm sure this fiddles with the standard hitting bell curve, I just haven't worked out how), but I'm sure that can be adjusted by adding or substracting dice (one die of each color? or three dice of each color?).

Well, let's see... right now: OCV + 11 - 3d6 >= DCV means you hit. Ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss, the highest DCV you can hit is OCV + 11 - 3 = OCV + 8. The lowest DCV you will always hit is OCV + 11 - 18 = OCV - 7.

What you're proposing: OCV + 2d6 - 2d6 >= DCV means you hit. Ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss, the highest DCV you can hit is OCV + 12 - 2 = OCV + 10. The lowest DCV you will always hit is OCV + 2 - 12 = OCV - 10.

This means with your proposed method, ignoring auto-hit and auto-miss rules, there's a greater range of DCVs where chance is an issue, and you can hit higher DCVs. (This was expected... 4 dice as opposed to 3 makes for a fatter bell curve.) On the other hand, those extremes are harder to acheive: rolling two 1s and two 6s is harder than rolling three 1s or three 6s. Taking into consideration auto-hit and auto-miss, and assuming auto-hit and auto-miss with your system are defined as two 1s and two 6s (which color dice depending on whether it's hit or miss), the chance to hit OCV + 10, or to miss OCV - 10, is higher with the current system than with your proposed system. I view this as a good thing, though. I'm not too fond of auto-hit and auto-miss, although I do recognize the necessity (you should always have a chance to hit, or miss). The chance to hit your own DCV with the current system is 62.5% (11- on 3 dice). With your proposed system, it's close to 55.6% (the equivalent of 14- on 4 dice). I'd say this is a good thing: hitting someone who's as good as avoiding being hit as you are at hitting people should be closer to 50/50 than 62.5%.

I dunno, all in all your system feels better, more realistic without being "deadlier". I like it!

[Netzilla]

So: 4d6 - what do you think?

In reference to:

Actually I was thinking the other day aboutt his, and I was completely going off on one. What I might resurrect and take out for a spin is the idea of replacing the 3d6 roll with a 4d6 roll: 2 green dice, 2 red. The green dice are positive, the red dice are negative, so you get a result of -10 to +10, centring on 0.


How very Feng Shui of you. :D (For those who don't know, the FS die mechanic is to roll one positive die and one negative die and add the result to your appropriate Stat+Skill to get an outcome).

It's nicely intuitive in that negative negative rolls are bad, positive rolls are good and 0 is the break-even point. My only worry on this is in the change in odds. You go from 3d6 odds:

3 = 0.46%
4 = 1.85%
5 = 4.63%
6 = 9.26%
7 = 16.2%
8 = 25.93%
9 = 37.5%
10 = 50%
11 = 62.5%
12 = 70.07%
13 = 83.8%
14 = 90.74%
15 = 95.37%
16 = 98.15%
17 = 99.54%
18 = 100%

To 4d6:

-10 = 0.08%
-9 = 0.39%
-8 = 1.16%
-7 = 2.7%
-6 = 5.4%
-5 = 9.72%
-4 = 15.9%
-3 = 23.92%
-2 = 33.56%
-1 = 44.37%
0 = 55.63%
1 = 66.44%
2 = 76.08%
3 = 84.1%
4 = 90.28%
5 = 94.6%
6 = 97.3%
7 = 98.84%
8 = 99.61%
9 = 99.92%
10 = 100%

This changes the odds of certain things quite a bit. On 3d6, when OCV = DCV, your odds to hit are around 63%. Using the 4d6, it drops to 55%. Auto-hit & auto-misses on 3d6 are both about 0.5% each (1 in 216), while on 4d6 they're only 0.08% (1 in 1296). This changes the values of various modifiers in the system. Probably not a big deal on situational modifiers, but those mods that cost points (CSLs, martial manuevers and so forth) may end up not costing right any more.

So, if you're comfortable with the changes to odds, the intuitiveness of the average roll = 0 is nice.

[ghost-angel]

I personally think the "trying to simplify the math for the D20 players" is insulting and belittling to your players... Unless they're 4 years old the change up shouldn't cause more than a slight pause in a session or two as they learn the system.

[Sean Waters]

I personally think the "trying to simplify the math for the D20 players" is insulting and belittling to your players... Unless they're 4 years old the change up shouldn't cause more than a slight pause in a session or two as they learn the system.

I have to say it again: I don't think it is a maths problem, I think that people who are familiar with most other role playing games, or even not familiar with role playing games at all intuitively think that a higher total is a better roll. I'm not sure there is any good reason to work against intuition: to do so makes the learning curve that little bit steeper, and I don't see that as a positive thing.

But the maths is simpler :D

[PhilFleischmann]

Actually I was thinking the other day aboutt his, and I was completely going off on one. What I might resurrect and take out for a spin is the idea of replacing the 3d6 roll with a 4d6 roll: 2 green dice, 2 red. The green dice are positive, the red dice are negative, so you get a result of -10 to +10, centring on 0.

IIRC, you mentioned this a long time ago, and I pointed out that it's mathematically the same as just rolling 4d6 of the same color and subtracting 14. And the same holds true for the "Feng Shui" method: +d6-d6 is exactly the same as 2d6-7. Sure, the different colors might look pretty, but they have no effect on the game mechanics.

The 4d6 bell curve is steeper than the 3d6 curve, which it seems to me is an undesirable result. And the 2d6 "bell curve" is not really bell-shaped - it's triangular - a straight line up and a straight line down.

And you can do the same thing while keeping the standard HERO bell curve, if you like: roll two "positive" dice and one "negative" die. You get the exact same bell curve as 3d6-7.

I don't see anything gained by the "positive and negative dice" method.

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.

[robertep]

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.
would you then multiple all CSLs and other modifiers by two ? or would you leave them the same ??

[Sean Waters]

IIRC, you mentioned this a long time ago, and I pointed out that it's mathematically the same as just rolling 4d6 of the same color and subtracting 14. And the same holds true for the "Feng Shui" method: +d6-d6 is exactly the same as 2d6-7. Sure, the different colors might look pretty, but they have no effect on the game mechanics.

The 4d6 bell curve is steeper than the 3d6 curve, which it seems to me is an undesirable result. And the 2d6 "bell curve" is not really bell-shaped - it's triangular - a straight line up and a straight line down.

And you can do the same thing while keeping the standard HERO bell curve, if you like: roll two "positive" dice and one "negative" die. You get the exact same bell curve as 3d6-7.

I don't see anything gained by the "positive and negative dice" method.

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.

I did and you did :)

3d6 has (to my mind) the (slight) problem that you can never actually make an 'average' roll. I appreciate that is no problem at all in practice, it is just a matter of aesthetics.

I have actually tried the 4d6 method (I started writing a rpg system, and even playtested it) and I was surprised at how often quite extreme results come up. It did not feel wrong in practice, and gave a decent range of results that were reasonably, but not completely predictable.

The nice thing about 2d6-2d6, as opposed to 4d6-14, is that, in practice, you can often cancel dice out, so speeding the result: 3 and 6 v 2 and 3 means you ignore the 3s and just get 6-2=4 as a result.

Also, in the system I was working on, if you rolled a double it had some enhanced or detrimental effect: more difficult to extract the information from a 4d6-14 roll.

Finally thre is something quite satisfying about having a result that averages zero: you are not introducing any new numbers into the system and the 'look and feel' is much more of a modified OCV/DCV contest rather than a somewhat remote calculation.

I can't see the 3d12 catching on, personally: no matter how statistically satisfying people are unlikely to feel comfortable with the dice: those little cubes have a place in the gestalt cousciousness of the gamer and non-gamer communities.


I've just thought of something though: extracting as much information from dice as you can is quite important to me: a single roll can accomplish a lot.

Here's two possible uses for that:

1. Damage based (partly) on success - if you hit the target you add the dice roll result to the damage. This way you don't actually get more damage for having a high OCV (which throws a lot of the rest of the system off) but you DO get modified damage for being lucky. I appreciate that low OCV characters would only ever hit with a damage bonus, but I don't see that as a problem: they are not hitting so often. In fact you could use standard (or average) damage, and modify by the 'to hit' roll for damage variation. That could speed things up a lot (read them like normal dice: 6 = 6 stun and 2 body). If you want MORE damage variation, if a 'set' (positive or negative) are a pair, roll again and add. That's like having a built in critical system at no extra cost.

2. You could actually use 4 different coloured dice (white and green for positive, say, and red and black for negative) then you could designate a couple of them as initiative dice , say green and red. If the green result is higher, whatever the 'total' result, you take your next phase 1 segment early, and if the red result is higher, one segment late.

The point is that the 'to hit' roll can be so much more, if we extract all the infomation we can from the result. Sure you can do that with 3d6*, but the options are wider and perhaps more intuitive with 4d6.




* To do something similar on 3d6, roll 3 different coloured dice, say red, green, blue. Designate red and green as initiative dice. Use standard damage and ADD the blue die if your damage is in the 1-4 DC range, the blue and red dice if it is in the 5-8 DC range and all the result dice if it is 9+DCs. I'm making thuis up, you understand, but it sounds do-able :)

[Sean Waters]

would you then multiple all CSLs and other modifiers by two ? or would you leave them the same ??


Probably leave them the same: less use in the middle ground, more use at the edges.

[Sean Waters]

OK, while I'm talking heresy, wouldn't it make more sense to have the number you need succeed be 10- not 11-: that way there is a perfect 50:50 chance of success or failure in a contest between two peopll of identical ability. At present you have a 62.5% chance of succeeding IF you are the 'active' party.

I mean, call me old fashioned, but that just seems to make sense.

I do appreciate that it might slow combat (as three would be less successful hits) but that isn't a good argument: if that mattered, we would hit on 14-, or 17-.

[Alibear]

Maybe the want to make the aggressor more likely to win in a combat?

[Netzilla]

OK, while I'm talking heresy, wouldn't it make more sense to have the number you need succeed be 10- not 11-: that way there is a perfect 50:50 chance of success or failure in a contest between two peopll of identical ability. At present you have a 62.5% chance of succeeding IF you are the 'active' party.

I mean, call me old fashioned, but that just seems to make sense.

I do appreciate that it might slow combat (as three would be less successful hits) but that isn't a good argument: if that mattered, we would hit on 14-, or 17-.

I believe that the odds of hitting are one of the reasons that defense is always cheaper to buy than offense. The to-hit roll is skewed in favor of the attacker, so defense costs are skewed in favor of the defender.

[Tonio]

IIRC, you mentioned this a long time ago, and I pointed out that it's mathematically the same as just rolling 4d6 of the same color and subtracting 14. And the same holds true for the "Feng Shui" method: +d6-d6 is exactly the same as 2d6-7. Sure, the different colors might look pretty, but they have no effect on the game mechanics.

I don't think it's a "colors" thing, it's a simplicity thing. 4d6-14 makes you ask "why substract 14? how do I remember it's 14, not 12 or 15?". 2d6 - 2d6 feels cleaner.


The 4d6 bell curve is steeper than the 3d6 curve, which it seems to me is an undesirable result. And the 2d6 "bell curve" is not really bell-shaped - it's triangular - a straight line up and a straight line down.

The 4d6 bell curve isn't steeper, it's fatter (less steep). And the 2d6 bell curve is a curve (well, as much as any dice-roll bell curves are real "curves"... they're really points in a curve, since there's 0 chance of rolling a 12.7 on 3d6). The 1d6 "bell curve" is a straight, horizontal line.


And you can do the same thing while keeping the standard HERO bell curve, if you like: roll two "positive" dice and one "negative" die. You get the exact same bell curve as 3d6-7.

True, although that mucks with the chances to hit and stuff, since the average roll is lower. On the other hand, I feel a fatter bell curve (offered by 4d6) is a good thing. =)


I don't see anything gained by the "positive and negative dice" method.

I have suggested in the past (but have never actually used) a 3d12 roll instead, which would allow for finer granularity in results. The base to-hit number would be 20, so you hit if 3d12 is less than or equal to 20+OCV-DCV.

3d12 gives you more granularity, but the same curve. Maybe more granularity is a good thing... I'm not sure it's needed at all, though. Maybe for low-powered games, where CVs are lower?

[Sean Waters]

I believe that the odds of hitting are one of the reasons that defense is always cheaper to buy than offense. The to-hit roll is skewed in favor of the attacker, so defense costs are skewed in favor of the defender.


That's what we are told, but do we ever question the wisdom?

To protect yourself against a 1d6 EB you need 6 points of ED, 4 of which can take the limitation 'only v stun' -1/2, the cost of which is 2+(4/1.5)=5 points. Then you need 2 points of KB resistance, total 9 points to defend against a 5 point attack.

Tell me again why the roll to hit is skewed in favour fo the attacker? :)

The 'break point' is arbitrary, whereever it falls: it just appears more decorous to me if it falls at the midpoint.

[Netzilla]

That's what we are told, but do we ever question the wisdom?

To protect yourself against a 1d6 EB you need 6 points of ED, 4 of which can take the limitation 'only v stun' -1/2, the cost of which is 2+(4/1.5)=5 points.


Assuming that your character starts with a 0 ED, to be completely immune would cost you those 5 points. To protect against the average roll would only cost you 4.

Also, look at the cost of other attacks:
* Flash 5 per 1d6 & does max 2 "dmg"; 2 Flash Def costs 2 pts.
* Ego Blast is 10 per d6 (max 6) & 6 Mental Defense costs 6 per points.
* Drains cost 10 per d6 (max 6) & 6 Power Def costs 6 per points.
* Killing Attacks cost 15 per d6 (max 6) & 6 Armor costs 9.


Then you need 2 points of KB resistance, total 9 points to defend against a 5 point attack.

First, you only need to worry about KB resistance after the first dice of EB, so you essentially have 2 for free. Second, as KB is based on Body, it's highly unlikely that you'll need all that much unless the attack is very large or has an advantage to increase knockback. In practice, you really only need 1" KB resistance per die after 7 dice. Go with 1 per after 4 dice if you're paranoid.

Additionally, you can resist KB with STR or Flight. The damage from KB is likely less than the damage of the attack itself, thus the defense you already have will probably protect you from KB damage. Finally, Breakfall is only 3 points.


Tell me again why the roll to hit is skewed in favour fo the attacker? :)

Actually, I suspect that it's the other way around. Defense is cheaper because hits come more often.


The 'break point' is arbitrary, whereever it falls: it just appears more decorous to me if it falls at the midpoint.

Weather or not it's arbitrary is really a question for the original system designers. However, the average person failing to punch another average person 50% of the time is a bit silly in my estimation. I think 63% is actually too low, but works well enough. That's one of the things that's always struck me as odd with most RPGs.

In most, the average person is way harder to hit than they are in real life.

[Sean Waters]

................................
Weather or not it's arbitrary is really a question for the original system designers. However, the average person failing to punch another average person 50% of the time is a bit silly in my estimation. I think 63% is actually too low, but works well enough. That's one of the things that's always struck me as odd with most RPGs.

In most, the average person is way harder to hit than they are in real life.

Not necessarily failing to hit, just failing to hit well enough to do any damage worth recording: I assume that most combats include all sorts of feints and even blows that we do not record. The roll just shows the net effect.

IMO, obviously.

[Tonio]

Not necessarily failing to hit, just failing to hit well enough to do any damage worth recording: I assume that most combats include all sorts of feints and even blows that we do not record. The roll just shows the net effect.

I considered arguing that, but decided against it on the basis that that's what defense is for. In games which don't use defense (like, for example, D&D, unless you consider damage reduction), hits that do no damage are counted as misses, which is why armor tends to raise the equivalent of DCV in those games (AC in D&D). On the other hand, in games that DO use the defense concept (like HERO), hitting is hitting... small blows that don't do damage are blows that hit but rolled low enough to be completely stopped by defenses. Armor doesn't raise your DCV, just your defenses.

[Jaxom]

The 4d6 bell curve isn't steeper, it's fatter (less steep). And the 2d6 bell curve is a curve (well, as much as any dice-roll bell curves are real "curves"... they're really points in a curve, since there's 0 chance of rolling a 12.7 on 3d6). The 1d6 "bell curve" is a straight, horizontal line.

Keep in mind that you are talking about a distribution. Depending on your definition, it can be wider or steeper... If you roll 2d6, you are going to roll a 7 16.7% of the time. You are going to get a 6, 7 or 8 (within 1 point of mean) 44.4% of the time. If you roll 4d6, you have twice as many numbers in your range, so your mean is 14 (only 11.26%) but odds of 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (the same fraction of the center of your distribution) is 52.16%.

This is what most people mean when they say a "steeper" distribution. It will always be the case that the more dice you roll, the more likely you are to hit be "close" to the mean. Close is, of course, a relative term which is why statistics uses the standard deviation.

The comparison of 2d6 to 4d6 is, of course, the simple one mathematically, because your range has doubled exactly... All values, min, max, mean, mode, median are exactly doubled. That means that a difference of 1 in a 2d6 distribution is the same as a difference of 2 in the 4d6 distribution. The point being that since you are concerned about ranges, not discrete values, most of the time, the distribution is "more peaked near the mean".


This is actually why I tend to avoid the discussions about dice mechanisms... Statistically, if you are rolling three dice and combining them using addition and subtraction in any fixed combination, the distribution is the same as summing 3d6. Playing with 2 or 4 d6 is the same thing with a slightly wider or narrower distribution. Shifting to center on zero or 11 or any other arbitrary number is a linear transform and does not affect the distribution. Until you start hacking at the shape of the distribution in a more substantial way, it doesn't affect the game-play beyond a little math which I am comfortable with.

If you want to change the system meaningfully, change the shape of the distribution... Try exploding dice... Roll a six, roll again and add it. Or try dice pools where you have to roll a number of successes based on a target number. Or do something really wacky and start multiplying. Roll a d10 until you get a 1. Then multiply the result of each roll together.

[Jaxom]

Because of the nature of the 3d6 distribution, Sean is correct that you can swap 3d6 less than or equal to 11 for 3d6 greater than or equal to 10. Since what he wants is a high-roll system, his proposal of 3d6+OCV greater than or equal to DCV plus 10 is a statistical equivalence. I dunno that it is necessarily more intuitive to me, but it does satisfy his goal.

[Cancer]

... Or do something really wacky and start multiplying. Roll a d10 until you get a 1. Then multiply the result of each roll together.

And before you jump into thinking about that one, the result of that is a power-law distribution whose mean value is not defined. It's mentioned here (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55132).

[Maur]

Exploding Dice already exist in a number of systems. D6 from WEG with the Wild Die. Shadowrun. Deadlands (original system, not the D20 version. Not sure about Reloaded). Exploding dice don't have that big of an effect on the mean, they just cause the tail of the distribution to taper out farther in one direction.

[PhilFleischmann]

would you then multiple all CSLs and other modifiers by two ? or would you leave them the same ??
I'd leave them the same. The idea was to increase the granularity of the results. If you just double everything, it's pretty much the same as it is now, mathematically speaking. The idea was a *possible* improvement to the game, not just to roll bigger dice for the sake of rolling bigger dice.

As the rules stand (assuming no other CV modifiers):
two characters with the same CV have a 62.5% chance to hit each other.
If their CV's differ by one, they have 74.1% and 50% chances to hit each other.
If their CV's differ by two, the chances are 83.8% and 37.5%.
If their CV's differ by three, it's 90.7% and 25.9%.

With only a 3 difference in CV, one character is about three and a half times as likely to hit the other as the other is to hit the first.

With 3d12, there are smaller increments between probability levels:
19 or less is 50%.
20 or less is about 56%
21- is about 62%
22- is about 69%
23- is about 75%
etc. (These aren't the exact odds, just estimates. I post the real odds when I have time.)

[PhilFleischmann]

I can't see the 3d12 catching on, personally: no matter how statistically satisfying people are unlikely to feel comfortable with the dice: those little cubes have a place in the gestalt cousciousness of the gamer and non-gamer communities.
But dodecahedrons are so cool! How 'bout rhombic dodecahedrons? I've been wanting some dice manufacturer for a long time to make rhombic dodecahedral twelve-siders. They stack up nicely, and can be used as the three-dimensional analogue of the hexagon.

In a thread a long time ago, I talked about rhombic dodecahedrons as the "3-d Hex". Which are easier to use when dealing with 3-d movement. You never have to use the Pythagorean theorem to see how far you can go at a particular angle. You just count hexes, just like you would on a 2-d hex grid!

Whoops! Off topic. :slap:

[PhilFleischmann]

The 4d6 bell curve isn't steeper, it's fatter (less steep). And the 2d6 bell curve is a curve (well, as much as any dice-roll bell curves are real "curves"... they're really points in a curve, since there's 0 chance of rolling a 12.7 on 3d6). The 1d6 "bell curve" is a straight, horizontal line.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. 4d6 is more likely to produce results in the middle of its relative range than 3d6, which in turn produces more middling results than 2d6, which in turn produces more middling results than 1d6. That's a general rule: the more dice, the steeper the curve.

And the 2d6 curve is indeed triangular: /\ The sides of the "bell curve" are not bell-shaped, but straight lines. The ways of rolling 2,3,4,5...12 are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

As opposed to the 3d6 curve, which is bell-shaped: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 25, 27, 27, 25, 21, 15, 10, 6, 3, 1.


True, although that mucks with the chances to hit and stuff, since the average roll is lower.
No doesn't. You just change the to-hit number needed.


On the other hand, I feel a fatter bell curve (offered by 4d6) is a good thing. =)
I'm interested to know what you mean by "fatter" in this case. You're less likely to produce results at the extremes of the range (4-24) than you were at the extremes of 3-18 with 3d6.


3d12 gives you more granularity, but the same curve. Maybe more granularity is a good thing... I'm not sure it's needed at all, though. Maybe for low-powered games, where CVs are lower?
The CVs being low or high doesn't really matter so much, it's the range of variance of CVs that makes a difference. I'd say it would be more needed in a game where CVs varied greatly. With the RAW, a 9 CV only misses a 3 CV on an 18. And a 3 CV only hits an 11 CV on a 3. With 3d12, it takes a greater variance to get to those extremes.

[Netzilla]

FYI, for those interested in trying the 2d6 - 2d6 die mechanic, you might want to take a look at picking up some of these (http://www.1st-quality-school-supplies.com/positive.html?zmam=5908402&zmas=4&zmac=16&zmap=positive). I like them for Feng Shui, myself. That way you don't have to worry about remember which color is positive and which is negative.

[Sean Waters]

I considered arguing that, but decided against it on the basis that that's what defense is for. In games which don't use defense (like, for example, D&D, unless you consider damage reduction), hits that do no damage are counted as misses, which is why armor tends to raise the equivalent of DCV in those games (AC in D&D). On the other hand, in games that DO use the defense concept (like HERO), hitting is hitting... small blows that don't do damage are blows that hit but rolled low enough to be completely stopped by defenses. Armor doesn't raise your DCV, just your defenses.

It is an interesting philosophical point, but my view is based on the idea that even most superheroes only attack every couple of seconds, and (even taking into account the possibility of sweep or autofire atatcks) that is unrealistically slow to be anything more than a 'net effect' calculation.

In any event, although Hero combat is not the quickest on the tabletop, you look how much time it takes 'in game' to complete even a pretty huge combat: I can't remember any combat ever taking more than a minute of game time. That is ridiculously fast.

(Am I arguing against my own point: I don't think so - if attacks ARE a net effect calculation then my argument makes sense and if they are not, well, we are clearly don't have enough granularity between attacks and defences)

SO: if you slow down the hit rate you wind up with a more appropriately paced combat.

This has a number of effects, not least of all boosting the utility of REC and regeneration. Of course you can get round that easy enough in character build (just allow more OCV levels to be bought).

In addition, aiming at a 10 just feels friendlier than aiming at an 11. We want more people to play Hero, it is not good simply shouting that the maths isn't difficult. I KNOW THAT. We have to have them make that choice, and the smoother the path, the more likely they are to take it.

Moreover, if you DID got his way it would remove one of the best arguments for high rolling :)

[Sean Waters]

But dodecahedrons are so cool! How 'bout rhombic dodecahedrons? I've been wanting some dice manufacturer for a long time to make rhombic dodecahedral twelve-siders. They stack up nicely, and can be used as the three-dimensional analogue of the hexagon.

In a thread a long time ago, I talked about rhombic dodecahedrons as the "3-d Hex". Which are easier to use when dealing with 3-d movement. You never have to use the Pythagorean theorem to see how far you can go at a particular angle. You just count hexes, just like you would on a 2-d hex grid!

Whoops! Off topic. :slap:

I'll rep you when I can for sheer unmitigated enthusiasm :)

[Sean Waters]

FYI, for those interested in trying the 2d6 - 2d6 die mechanic, you might want to take a look at picking up some of these (http://www.1st-quality-school-supplies.com/positive.html?zmam=5908402&zmas=4&zmac=16&zmap=positive). I like them for Feng Shui, myself. That way you don't have to worry about remember which color is positive and which is negative.

Another thing I've tried, if you favour greater randomness, is this:

I got 4 blank dice and painted them up with 0 to 5 and 0 to -5 (2 and 2).

You roll them and simply use the higher total, whether it is positive or negative, without subtraction:

So if you roll 3,2,-4, -5, the total is -9, ignoring the positive roll entirely.

That gives an interesting distribution: you have a (nearly) 50% chance of a positive or negative result (the nearly is because you can stil get a zero result if the totals match), and the total will have a 2d6 distribution - so extreme results are far moer likely. This works well if you relate the 'to hit' roll to damage, modifying a 'standard' damage result.

Personally I prefer 2d6-2d6, but that is just me.

[steamteck]

I have to say it again: I don't think it is a maths problem, I think that people who are familiar with most other role playing games, or even not familiar with role playing games at all intuitively think that a higher total is a better roll. I'm not sure there is any good reason to work against intuition: to do so makes the learning curve that little bit steeper, and I don't see that as a positive thing.

But the maths is simpler :D


It not simpler its just different.:idjit: frankly roll under has been my favorite way since the Fantasy Trip. It just elegant to my sensibilities. Your abilities are X or less, if you roll over your capability you fail. This is just one of the unbroken things people feel they need to mess with just because IMO. To put my snob hat on for a minute, it also seems like a pandering to the lowest common denominator . "People are too dim and unadaptable to get this mechanic so lets do it like the :big boys"". Seems like this leads to logic leads to lots of systems all the same.This same argument could apply to dozens of good mechanics. if you're going to change to hit why leave skills alone. Changing that to roll over would be a pain in the neck. The Rollong mechanic is just perfect IMO.:)

[Tonio]

There's a reason why most/all of the "big boys" do it the same way. It makes more sense; it's more intuitive. Now, experience can trump intuitiveness... so rolling over would be awkward for longtime HERO players, but that doesn't make it a worse technique than rolling under. Consider, for example, how all (most?) applications have their menu at the top (File, Edit, etc.). This is widely accepted as being more intuitive than having it at either side, or the bottom. But Windows continues to put the taskbar (i.e. the Windows "menu bar") at the bottom. Not because it's better, but because Windows users are used to it. Mac users have always had all their menu bars (OS and application) at the top, and they're used to that.

Notice how, when rolling, bigger is always better, EXCEPT when rolling skills/to-hit. Damage, Flash effect, Entangle, Mind Control/Scan/etc effect... in all of these, high numbers are good. But when rolling to-hit, or to succeed in a skill, the reverse is desired, for no intuitive reason, especially when contrasted with, for example, Mind Control. When trying to Mind Control, you roll two sets of dice, and both are the same general concept: roll to see whether I succeed or not. Both rolls result in succeed or fail (different from rolling a, say, EB, where you roll to-hit (succeed/fail), and then damage (quantity of damage, varying effect, not succeed/fail)). But in one of those rolls, I want to roll high, the other, low. Just seems odd, if you're not used to it. =)

And pandering to the lowest common denominator is only a problem when you're creating problems for the greatest common factor (to extend the math analogy!). If you simply the system in such a way that it becomes boring, only so that "people [who] are too dim" can use it, then you have a problem. If you say "how much is 2+2?" rather than "solve for x: x-2 = 2"... then you're simply creating a more usable system. =)

[steamteck]

I see where you're coming from but the logic of being more intuitive just completely escapes me. characteristics are tailor made for roll under systems to me. X number is my level of power if it I roll equal to or under my level of ability I succeed. If that confuses people I don't understand how they can hold down a job. saying the roll over mechanic scares people off if it isn't ridiculous but true is very very sad.
To derail your windows analogy for use with multifocals, lower really IS better to see the bar more clearly. Sometimes things are different for a good reason.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator always negatively impacts the highest IMO , you just have to find a balance that works best for your audience.

[Tonio]

I don't think anybody's arguing that roll under is "too complicated" or "too confusing". I'm certainly not. I'm not even arguing that it's counter-intuitive. Just that it's less intuitive than roll over, and that the fact that you (and I) are comfortable with roll under is more due to experience (getting used to) than intuitiveness. Neither system is inherently more complicated. Taken alone (that is, not considering any other rolls), neither is really more intuitive, except for a small bias towards roll over, since usually "bigger is better" in games (higher scores being better, for example, in most games).

My solution would be to introduce an "optional rule" to convert the system to roll over (using the same values everywhere), eventually (say, next version, or two versions after the current one?) turn the current system into the optional rule, and roll over into the standard, and after that, eliminate the current system. Not because there's anything wrong with the current one, but because they're mechanically identical and roll over is more intuitive for newcomers.

[Maur]

There's a reason why most/all of the "big boys" do it the same way. It makes more sense; it's more intuitive. Now, experience can trump intuitiveness... so rolling over would be awkward for longtime HERO players, but that doesn't make it a worse technique than rolling under. Consider, for example, how all (most?) applications have their menu at the top (File, Edit, etc.). This is widely accepted as being more intuitive than having it at either side, or the bottom. But Windows continues to put the taskbar (i.e. the Windows "menu bar") at the bottom. Not because it's better, but because Windows users are used to it. Mac users have always had all their menu bars (OS and application) at the top, and they're used to that.

Hmm, I guess that Dock sitting right about where the taskbar does is just a fluke then... As to why the menus sit at the top, well I don't think that is any more intuitive than the bottom or the side. It just made for a convenient place to put them that would be most likely kept visible all the time. Apple put the menubar at the top of the screen for all applications as a way to deal with the limited real estate available on that era's CRTs. Now, it doesn't make sense as it divorces the menu from the application and slows a user down if they have to mouse across a 24 or 30" LCD to get to the menu...

As for what is more natural, roll under or roll over, well, neither. If a larger number was always better, then why is 1st place better than 2nd?

[archermoo]

I see where you're coming from but the logic of being more intuitive just completely escapes me. characteristics are tailor made for roll under systems to me. X number is my level of power if it I roll equal to or under my level of ability I succeed. If that confuses people I don't understand how they can hold down a job. saying the roll over mechanic scares people off if it isn't ridiculous but true is very very sad.
To derail your windows analogy for use with multifocals, lower really IS better to see the bar more clearly. Sometimes things are different for a good reason.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator always negatively impacts the highest IMO , you just have to find a balance that works best for your audience.

I'm with you on this one. Neither one is more intuitive than the other. I grasped the concept that rolling as high as possible isn't always the best result when I first started playing Monopoly. Or maybe Chutes & Ladders.

It all comes down to expectations. The math isn't easier one way over the other. One way isn't more intuitive than the other. Either way is pretty simple to do, and the one that makes most sense to you is the one that you are used to or were expecting.

[Tonio]

Hmm, I guess that Dock sitting right about where the taskbar does is just a fluke then... As to why the menus sit at the top, well I don't think that is any more intuitive than the bottom or the side. It just made for a convenient place to put them that would be most likely kept visible all the time. Apple put the menubar at the top of the screen for all applications as a way to deal with the limited real estate available on that era's CRTs. Now, it doesn't make sense as it divorces the menu from the application and slows a user down if they have to mouse across a 24 or 30" LCD to get to the menu...

As for what is more natural, roll under or roll over, well, neither. If a larger number was always better, then why is 1st place better than 2nd?

Regarding menus at the top, Windows UI vs Mac UI, etc... it was an example, not supposed to spur a debate on "which is better". I picked a bad example. =)

First place being better than 2nd is different, since we're talking ordinals, not cardinals... it's not exactly analogous, since there's really no 0th place (the "0th" item in a 0-based array is still the first item, it's just convenient to call it the 0th item), but you CAN roll 0 damage (well, mebbe only on BODY with normal attacks), and you can inflict 0 damage (like whenever defenses are greater than damage rolled), and with modifiers you can roll a 0 on your to-hit roll (HERO's rolling system doesn't permit this by using a special rule: 3's always hit, 18's always miss), etc.

In situations where we're representing an ordinal quality, it can be argued that roll under makes more sense. For example, determining who acts first. Curiously enough, HERO does this the other way around (only you're not rolling). The highest DEX acts first. If you had an "initiative" stat, it'd make sense that "lower is better", since you could just add a "st", "nd", "rd", or "th" to it to determine when you act... initiative "1" goes "1st", "2" goes "2nd", etc. I'm not suggesting lower DEXs should act first, and I'm not suggesting the current system is bad or broken. Of course higher DEXs should act first... they're quicker to act. But there's a concrete concept to determine that: quickness implies acting first. No such thing with rolling under/over. As a side note, D&D used to work that way... initiative was "roll under", or more correctly, "roll low". Made sense until you consider initiative modifiers... suddenly "pluses" were bad. :(

I guess it all boils down to general weirdness when you consider all the math involved. When you roll under, pluses to your roll are bad. You have to apply them to your roll's target (whatever you have to roller under of). That's fine, except when there's no actual target. Like say "whoever rolls best wins". In a roll under system, a plus would either have to be applied to your opponent's roll (how come my opponent, who's not interacting with me, is modifying my roll?!), or turned into minuses (but minus is bad!). No, it's not hard to understand... it's just... odd, I guess. Easy to get used to, certainly! Just odd, initially.

[archermoo]

I guess it all boils down to general weirdness when you consider all the math involved. When you roll under, pluses to your roll are bad. You have to apply them to your roll's target (whatever you have to roller under of). That's fine, except when there's no actual target. Like say "whoever rolls best wins". In a roll under system, a plus would either have to be applied to your opponent's roll (how come my opponent, who's not interacting with me, is modifying my roll?!), or turned into minuses (but minus is bad!). No, it's not hard to understand... it's just... odd, I guess. Easy to get used to, certainly! Just odd, initially.

Or applied as a positive modifier to the number you are trying to roll under.

And how is minus bad when you are trying to roll low? :confused:

[Tonio]

I'm with you on this one. Neither one is more intuitive than the other. I grasped the concept that rolling as high as possible isn't always the best result when I first started playing Monopoly. Or maybe Chutes & Ladders.

It all comes down to expectations. The math isn't easier one way over the other. One way isn't more intuitive than the other. Either way is pretty simple to do, and the one that makes most sense to you is the one that you are used to or were expecting.

Well, in both Monopoly and Chutes & Ladders, rolling high is best in general, it's just that there are complications. In C&L, you wanna roll high... but not land on a chute, and if possible, land on a ladder. In Monopoly it's the same thing, since passing through Go gives you free money, only you want to land on some unbought properties so you can buy 'em, too. Even in Trivial Pursuit, where there's no "goal" space to reach, you still want to generally roll high, to reach the next pie-awarding space fastest (until you're close enough to land with one roll, then you want an exact roll, not a low one). And yes, there are games (those three are great examples) where rolling high is not always best... but they are exceptions to the rule (some more than others... Trivial Pursuit is probably the biggest exception of the three, Chutes and Ladders the smallest).

[archermoo]

Well, in both Monopoly and Chutes & Ladders, rolling high is best in general, it's just that there are complications. In C&L, you wanna roll high... but not land on a chute, and if possible, land on a ladder. In Monopoly it's the same thing, since passing through Go gives you free money, only you want to land on some unbought properties so you can buy 'em, too. Even in Trivial Pursuit, where there's no "goal" space to reach, you still want to generally roll high, to reach the next pie-awarding space fastest (until you're close enough to land with one roll, then you want an exact roll, not a low one). And yes, there are games (those three are great examples) where rolling high is not always best... but they are exceptions to the rule (some more than others... Trivial Pursuit is probably the biggest exception of the three, Chutes and Ladders the smallest).

But all three quite handily shoot down the "highestest is always bestest" idea. I guess it is too bad that not many people played any of those because their dice rolling mechanic is so complicated...

[Tonio]

Or applied as a positive modifier to the number you are trying to roll under.

That's what I meant by "whatever you have to roller under of". =)
Then I pointed out a case where there might not be a target roll (i.e. the number you are trying to roll under).


And how is minus bad when you are trying to roll low? :confused:

I didn't mean mathematically, I meant psychologically, intuitively, emotively, something along those lines. =)

[Tonio]

But all three quite handily shoot down the "highestest is always bestest" idea. I guess it is too bad that not many people played any of those because their dice rolling mechanic is so complicated...

Sarcasm notwithstanding, the idea isn't "shot down". The idea isn't that rolling high is categorically and under all circumstances better than rolling low. It's that intuitively rolling high is presumed to be better than rolling low. Some systems use counter- or non-intuitive systems, and that's not a big problem. Most of the time it's easy to get used to (like HERO's system). Some systems use roll-high but add in complexities [oh, I see now... earlier I said "complications" when I meant "complexities"... my bad!], like most (all?) board games.

Just because you can drive drunk and not crash your car doesn't mean driving while drunk is a good idea. Just like there being games that use roll-low for success and work doesn't mean rolling low for success is a better idea. It might be a better idea for that particular game, it might be a worse idea balanced by superior mechanics in other areas, it might be a worse idea that's not worse enough to warrant a change (sure, you can scrap your 3-month-old video card to buy a brand-spanking new one, which is slightly faster... but it's not worth it).

[archermoo]

I didn't mean mathematically, I meant psychologically, intuitively, emotively, something along those lines. =)

Same question remains. Psychologically, intuitively and emotively, when I am trying to roll low minuses to my roll are good things, and pluses to my roll are bad things. And on the flip side, minuses to the number I'm trying to roll under are bad, and pluses to the number I'm trying to roll under are good.

I've never understood why people feel the need to convince others that the way of doing things that they subjectively prefer, or that subjectively makes more sense to them, must also be objectively better. It is a matter of what you are used to and what you expect. Nothing more.

[archermoo]

It's that intuitively rolling high is presumed to be better than rolling low.

Presumably if you are going to continue to insist that this is the case for more than just yourself and potentially some of your friends you have a peer reviewed study that you can direct me to that supports your assertion.

[Tonio]

Presumably if you are going to continue to insist that this is the case for more than just yourself and potentially some of your friends you have a peer reviewed study that you can direct me to that supports your assertion.

No, not really. But I can point to how most situations where you roll dice, rolling high is better for the roller than rolling low. I can also point to how most numerical values assigned to a person represent "better" qualities when they're higher, rather than lower. Certainly not all... golf scores, latency, moves it takes you to win a chess game, place in line, income tax due (debatable, since it represents a reduction, a "minus", so lower absolute value is higher number)... there are plenty of exceptions. But they're still exceptions.

[archermoo]

No, not really. But I can point to how most situations where you roll dice, rolling high is better for the roller than rolling low. I can also point to how most numerical values assigned to a person represent "better" qualities when they're higher, rather than lower. Certainly not all... golf scores, latency, moves it takes you to win a chess game, place in line, income tax due (debatable, since it represents a reduction, a "minus", so lower absolute value is higher number)... there are plenty of exceptions. But they're still exceptions.

Which is to say that subjectively you feel that higher is better and so prefer it. You notice the higher numbers and situations where higher rolls are better more because you prefer them.

The oldest dice game that I'm aware of (craps) doesn't have high or low as the best result. Both extremes are bad. 2, 3, and 12 automatically lose for the roller, wheras 7 and 11 automatically win. At least on the first roll. And I'm pretty sure that there are more games of craps played every year than games of Monopoly.

[ghost-angel]

It's a false theory. There is no "intuitively more is better" concept built into anything. It's a subjective placement imposed by the user.

People just think it's there the same way they forget the Laws Of Probability reset with each instance. Because people refuse to stop and think.

[archermoo]

It's a false theory. There is no "intuitively more is better" concept built into anything. It's a subjective placement imposed by the user.

People just think it's there the same way they forget the Laws Of Probability reset with each instance. Because people refuse to stop and think.

Well, they don't really reset, you just have to pay attention to what you are using them to predict. On a "fair" coin you have a 1 in 8 chance of flipping three heads in a row. However after you've already flipped 2 heads in a row that chance becomes 1 in 2. That last coin flip doesn't "remember" that when you started there was only a 1 in 8 chance and so then flip tails 7 out of 8 tries.

People like to think that others are like them. So if something makes sense to them, they tend to assume that it makes sense to everyone else, or at least most other people. Particularly if it is something that they and their friends agree on. so "it is more intuitive to me" becomes quite quickly just "it is more intuitive".

[Tonio]

People like to think that others are like them. So if something makes sense to them, they tend to assume that it makes sense to everyone else, or at least most other people. Particularly if it is something that they and their friends agree on. so "it is more intuitive to me" becomes quite quickly just "it is more intuitive".

Goes both ways... just because something is not intuitive to you does not make it less intuitive.

Can we agree that "more is better" is a general human preconception, though? Or is this also a faulty jump in logic I'm doing, that because I feel more is better, in general, then so should most people? Need I point out how the fast food industry has built an empire around that whole concept? Actually, hasn't capitalist commerce as a whole been based on this concept for an exceptionally long time? "Buy from me, I offer you more than my competitor"? Or really, most interpersonal interactions based around some form of this concept? "I'm with her because she makes me happier (more happy)", "This is the better candidate, he brings more skills to our company", etc.

If we can agree on that, why are dice an exception? Why, without knowing anything else, are more dice, or more pips on the dice I rolled, not perceived as better, by default?

If we can't, well... I dunno, I think I'm out of my league, then.

[archermoo]

Goes both ways... just because something is not intuitive to you does not make it less intuitive.

True. The difference is that I'm not saying that one is more or less intuitive than the other. You are.


Can we agree that "more is better" is a general human preconception, though? Or is this also a faulty jump in logic I'm doing, that because I feel more is better, in general, then so should most people? Need I point out how the fast food industry has built an empire around that whole concept? Actually, hasn't capitalist commerce as a whole been based on this concept for an exceptionally long time? "Buy from me, I offer you more than my competitor"? Or really, most interpersonal interactions based around some form of this concept? "I'm with her because she makes me happier (more happy)", "This is the better candidate, he brings more skills to our company", etc.

If we can agree on that, why are dice an exception? Why, without knowing anything else, are more dice, or more pips on the dice I rolled, not perceived as better, by default?

If we can't, well... I dunno, I think I'm out of my league, then.

I think I might finally be getting my point across. No, I don't agree that "more is better" is necessarily a general human preconception. If I'm in pain, I don't want more, I want less. If I have debt I don't want more, I want less. And all too frequently retail is based around "give the customer as little as possible while charging as much as you can for it". So that one has both more AND less in it.

I don't think "roll the dice, you want to roll as low as possible" is any less intuitive than "roll the dice, you want to roll as high as possible".

[ghost-angel]

Besides. Hero's two mechanics are divided along two lines:

Under/Less = Success
Higher/More = Effect

If you know you're rolling under a target you're trying to succeed at something, if you're trying to roll high you're trying to affect something.

Now THAT seems like an "intuitive" division that allows the human brain to compartmentalize what's going on. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Or applied as a positive modifier to the number you are trying to roll under.

And how is minus bad when you are trying to roll low? :confused:

To those for whom "more/bigger" always intuitively equates to "better", I'd like you to make all of your purchasing decisions through me. Speaking for myself, I prefer the illogical and counterintuitive "minus" to be applied to the prices I will pay, but if you prefer to have something added, I'm more than willing to negotiate with suppliers of goods and services on your behalf to persuade them to accommodate your more intuitive and logical preferences. Heck, I'll even tack on a fee myself to make the final price even "better"! How's that sound?

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, in both Monopoly and Chutes & Ladders, rolling high is best in general, it's just that there are complications. In C&L, you wanna roll high... but not land on a chute, and if possible, land on a ladder.

So in many cases a lower roll is superior.


In Monopoly it's the same thing, since passing through Go gives you free money, only you want to land on some unbought properties so you can buy 'em, too.

Just rolling high seldom gives the best result in monopoly.


Even in Trivial Pursuit, where there's no "goal" space to reach, you still want to generally roll high, to reach the next pie-awarding space fastest (until you're close enough to land with one roll, then you want an exact roll, not a low one).

If I'm on one piece of the pie, I want a 2 more than I want a 6. That 2 will land me on "roll again", but 6 means I have to answer a question or my turn ends, with no reward for getting it right.

Pachisi: I want a roll that allows me to build a barrier, not one that gets my pieces as far (apart) as possible.

Backgammon: I want rolls that allow me to hit your single pieces, cover my own single pieces and build unbroken chains of covered spaces making it hard for you to move. Often, a high roll is the last thing I want since it forces me to leave you an opportunity (or precludes me bring my man back in).


And yes, there are games (those three are great examples) where rolling high is not always best... but they are exceptions to the rule (some more than others... Trivial Pursuit is probably the biggest exception of the three, Chutes and Ladders the smallest).

I think you vastly underestimate the number of examples in this regard. Absent a game so simplistic that the only thing that matters is circling the board quickly, a high roll is seldom the universal best roll in a board game.

[ghost-angel]

Backgammon: I want rolls that allow me to hit your single pieces, cover my own single pieces and build unbroken chains of covered spaces making it hard for you to move. Often, a high roll is the last thing I want since it forces me to leave you an opportunity (or precludes me bring my man back in).

In fact, in backgammon the best rolls are often 1 low and 1 high die. In the opening game the best combinations are 2 apart, regardless of the numbers (though repeats are cumbersome)... 1/3, 2/4, 3/5, 4/6 allow you to close your home which is the preferred strategy. More often than not Double 6s causes more trouble than it resolves.

[archermoo]

In fact, in backgammon the best rolls are often 1 low and 1 high die. In the opening game the best combinations are 2 apart, regardless of the numbers (though repeats are cumbersome)... 1/3, 2/4, 3/5, 4/6 allow you to close your home which is the preferred strategy. More often than not Double 6s causes more trouble than it resolves.

I guess backgammon players are better at dealing with non-intuitive dice rolling. ;)

[CrosshairCollie]

Diving to the end of the thread ...

I don't think it matters so long as the game system is consistent on rolling high or rolling low. It's very easy for me to remember "Playing d20. Roll high." and "Playing HERO. Roll low." Not that I can actually control the dice, of course. :D

The problem is when you get things like 2nd Edition D&D, where you wanted to roll high for attacks (but your AC got lower as it improved), low for skill checks, high for saving throws, low for ability checks ...

[SteveZilla]

If a game system has any kind of random damage rolls (just about every RPG I can think of -- Hero System, D&D, Gamma World, Rune Quest, Myth World, Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, etc.), those rolls are *always* higher is better for the character taking the action.

The question then is: Should the system be consistent throughout (i.e. high rolls are "better" for everything), or should we flip it for some of the other rolls (like skills)?

And if you have a skill/combat roll system that is meant to be open-ended (Torg, Master Book, and IIRC all White Wolf games) then those rolls also *must* be of the "higher is better" mechanic.

I know of no system where lower stats are better than higher, or lower levels of advancement in a skill is better than more advancement. But based on that, it is IMO an intuitive leap that the simplest way to translate higher stats & skills into an improved chance at doing something is to roll below their total (or some other simple mathematical construct like 9+STAT/5 ;)).

So to have the rolls be uniformly "higher=better", you have to juggle the skill and stat advancement somehow to allow rolling "over" an increasing number as the stat/skill improves. This is usually done with Target Numbers assigned in a somewhat arbitrary manner (IMO) to all possible tasks.

Hero System skills follow the "Lower=Better" mechanic IMO simply due to it's simpler due to the fact that skills and stats get bigger as they get better. The 9+STAT/5 formula is needed for reasons that have nothing to do with the choice of "Higher or Lower is Better".


The divide by 5 is so that the roll is weighted more heavily by the amount of skill, not the stat that it draws from.
The +9 is to make it a meaningful number that can be used relative to a 3d6 roll.In Hero, Opposed Rolls like STR Vs STR to escape a grab are effect rolls, and so higher=better for them. Opposed Rolls like Computer Programming Vs Computer Programming to hack into a computer are still skill rolls, and so lower=better for them.

Opposed Combat Values fall into the lower=better pasture because they were set up to mimic the mechanic of skill rolls, only without the need for two rolls for each attack in combat.

I think that Roll Low For Affect, Roll High For Effect is a natural byproduct from a Game System where a bigger number on the sheet indicates a greater ability, and requires the least amount of explaining to get the mechanic across to new players.

In the (somewhat limited) wargaming experience I have, I have seen that the RPG components are stripped out, leaving just the "final value". Because of this stripping, it's easy to make them consistently higher=better for all rolls, which they do. The turnaround is that when they try to introduce RPG aspects (like pilot improvement in Classic Battletech), the "final value" has to decrease as one improves. An apparent dichotomy, not to mention that improvement is also capped at zero.

However, a reason may exist for the game designer to not fully go the "all rolls are higher=better" route -- the possibility of loaded dice. AFAIK, most wargames don't roll handfuls of dice like is commonplace in many RPGs, making it easier to modify the rolls with a loaded die or couple of dice. D&D, despite not using handfuls of dice (except for 10th lvl fireballs and the like), does use a wide variety of dice which also makes loading extremely difficult.

So for those who are experienced in wargames before coming to Hero System, I can understand the confusion that Combat and Skill rolls being lower=better can cause them.

Sorry if I rambled. :)

[Sean Waters]

So, er, given that it is going to take a short paragraph at most, wouldn't it be better to include both methods; high roll and low roll?

It would then allow the individual or group to decide which way they prefer and make the game even more of a toolkit.

Personally I like the idea of high roll. High OCV is good, so why not a high roll? However I have no problems mathematically or philosophically with people using low roll is good.

Personally I'd also like to see skill rolls recorded differently: Skill total ( PLUS characteristic modifier PLUS skill levels).

So if you have Stealth, DEX of 14 and 2 skill levels?

Stealth 14- OR Stealth 3 (+1 +2)

Why?

Well:

1. I'd like th eskill and combat mechanics to more closely mirror each other.

2. It is nice to see the breakdown of how the bonuses to your skill roll are made up, and not a bad thing to point out that they ARE bonuses.

[SteveZilla]

Personally I'd also like to see skill rolls recorded differently: Skill total ( PLUS characteristic modifier PLUS skill levels).

So if you have Stealth, DEX of 14 and 2 skill levels?

Stealth 14- OR Stealth 3 (+1 +2)

Why?

Well:

1. I'd like the skill and combat mechanics to more closely mirror each other.

2. It is nice to see the breakdown of how the bonuses to your skill roll are made up, and not a bad thing to point out that they ARE bonuses.

I see where you are going, but I can see someone who is new to the system asking "So how do I get from 6 to 14 or less?"

IMO it would be clearer to just display the full formula: Stealth 9 + 2 + (DEX/5 = 3). That way, the player can see what stat affects what skills, and makes the intuitive connection immediately that even temporary changes to a stat affects the associated skill rolls.

[Sean Waters]

I see where you are going, but I can see someone who is new to the system asking "So how do I get from 6 to 14 or less?"

IMO it would be clearer to just display the full formula: Stealth 9 + 2 + (DEX/5 = 3). That way, the player can see what stat affects what skills, and makes the intuitive connection immediately that even temporary changes to a stat affects the associated skill rolls.

Personally I'd like to see skills rolled the same way combat attacks are; your stealth is 3, your opponent has PER of 2, you need (3-2+11) = 12- to sneak by.

[Hyper-Man]

Personally I'd like to see skills rolled the same way combat attacks are; your stealth is 3, your opponent has PER of 2, you need (3-2+11) = 12- to sneak by.

But that would only work in a 1 on 1 situation.

In a 1 vs. group situation the Stealth and PER rolls should all be independently rolled.

[ghost-angel]

you know why this really baffles me....

we're capable of making a large number of decisions regarding actions in combat, strategies (well thought out or otherwise), understanding complex rules (all games have some.. Attack Of Opporutnity anyone?), Large numbers of combinations of abilities and how they affect each other, thinking decently far ahead of character advancement, all things that many RPGs (including D20) have.

Yet remembering if we want a low or high number is somehow taxing our brains too much?

Talk about a lame excuse and a metric ton of BS.

[Captain Obvious]

The Obvious Solution:

Step 1: Keep all skill rolls and attack rolls as they are in Hero.

Step 2: Don't allow characters to roll their own damage. The character being affected rolls damage, eg, Grond pounds Defender with a Haymaker, Defender rolls a lot of damage dice.

Step 3: Hero becomes a universal roll-under system. And that's the way you do it.

Edit: This post officially gives me the keys to the executive washroom. No one come in here for a while. I've been holding this a long time.

[SteveZilla]

:sniff: Ewww, what's that smell?


:D

[SteveZilla]

Personally I'd like to see skills rolled the same way combat attacks are; your stealth is 3, your opponent has PER of 2, you need (3-2+11) = 12- to sneak by.

How would this kind of system handle skill rolls when it's just a familiarity or the 2 pt background skill option?

Also, such a system reminds me of D&D for some reason.

[Sean Waters]

How would this kind of system handle skill rolls when it's just a familiarity or the 2 pt background skill option?

Also, such a system reminds me of D&D for some reason.


Well, I suppose that when you purchase a skill you get extra points with it:

Familiarity (1 point) is a -1 point skill (and you can't use other skill levels), if you spend 2 points on it then you have +2 points (but still can't use other skill levels, or maybe only at half value, round down), and the full 3 points and you get +2 and the ability to use other applicable skill levels freely.

So, if you've spent 3 points on stealth, you get 2 'skill levels', DEX/3 and any additional skill levels you have bought.

So, if you spend 5 points on Stealth (skill+1) and have a DEX of 14, that would be recorded as Stealth +4, which would be 3 from the skill and 1 from DEX, which is the equivalent of 9+4=13-, if you just want to roll that way.

Two advantages:

1. You get a finer grade of skill: you don't go from familiarity to full skill.

2. You can use the Hero Combat mechanic (a normal skill roll would be against a defensive skill value of 2, an easy skill roll against a DSV of 0, a hard skill roll against a DSV of 4, etc). Really good for opposed skills IMO.

[Sean Waters]

But that would only work in a 1 on 1 situation.

In a 1 vs. group situation the Stealth and PER rolls should all be independently rolled.

Wouldn't normally do it that way, personally. If I was trying to sneak past 2 guards, I'd have a penalty, probably -2 on the roll. Each doubling of the number of guards woudl add +2.

So, if I have a Stealth 6 (I'm good), I'm trying to get past eight normal guards (INT 10, PER 2), I roll against 2+6 (for 8 guards), and so I need 6-8+11=9-

Even if you did want individual roll, still not a problem: I roll 3d6 and subtract from 11. That acts as a bonus to my stealth: so if I rolled 8, I would have a (11-8)=3 bonus, for a total of 6+3=9. If I roll 13, I have a (11-13)=-2 'bonus' for a total of 6+-2=4.

The guards then use that as the DSV and roll PER normally. Or you could roll for each one individually, and your stealth to oppose.

[Duke Bushido]

okay. First:

I just did a re-read of this thread, and it seems to have made its various points and to have begun its slowdown and drift phase, so now I feel comfortable replying with a tangent. :lol: If I've misjudged, well-- sincerest appologies.




The point is that the 'to hit' roll can be so much more, if we extract all the infomation we can from the result. Sure you can do that with 3d6*, but the options are wider and perhaps more intuitive with 4d6.




* To do something similar on 3d6, roll 3 different coloured dice, say red, green, blue. Designate red and green as initiative dice.

About three years ago, my players started rolling all their 3d6 rolls with specifically-colored dice. I didn't question it till I saw things changing hands: other dice, miniatures, occasional cash---

seems they've concocted some sort of gambling game based on the sequencing of the values of each die as it's rolled... :lol:

Sorry--- it's apropos of nothing, really, which is why I waited till the thread seemed to have cooled a bit. ;)

[steamteck]

About three years ago, my players started rolling all their 3d6 rolls with specifically-colored dice. I didn't question it till I saw things changing hands: other dice, miniatures, occasional cash---



It just shows how The poor players are confused by different types of rolling mechanics:D

[SteveZilla]

Wouldn't normally do it that way, personally. If I was trying to sneak past 2 guards, I'd have a penalty, probably -2 on the roll. Each doubling of the number of guards woudl add +2.

So, if I have a Stealth 6 (I'm good), I'm trying to get past eight normal guards (INT 10, PER 2), I roll against 2+6 (for 8 guards), and so I need 6-8+11=9-

Which presumes that all the guards are cookie-cutter duplicates, and discounts that all it takes is for just one of them to get lucky with a three.


Even if you did want individual roll, still not a problem: I roll 3d6 and subtract from 11. That acts as a bonus to my stealth: so if I rolled 8, I would have a (11-8)=3 bonus, for a total of 6+3=9. If I roll 13, I have a (11-13)=-2 'bonus' for a total of 6+-2=4.

The guards then use that as the DSV and roll PER normally. Or you could roll for each one individually, and your stealth to oppose.

Let me see if I understand the mechanic. Mr. Sneaker with Stealth 6 (equivalent to having a 15- roll, right?) tries to sneak past some Tom, Dick, and Harry. Mr. Sneaker's player rolls 3d6 (say it comes up 9) and subtracts that from 11, making a +2 modifier to their Stealth (now effectively an 8?). The three people being snuck past have a relevant PER of 4. They roll 3d6 (generating a 7, 10, and 14) and subtract from 11 (making +4, +1, and -3) which they then add to their PER (making 8, 5, and 1). These numbers are then compared to the adjusted Stealth of the sneaky person, and if greater, then the person detected Mr. Sneaker?

[Sean Waters]

Which presumes that all the guards are cookie-cutter duplicates, and discounts that all it takes is for just one of them to get lucky with a three.

OTOH, adding bonuses for extra guards (and most guards are cookie cutter duplicates) makes it considerably harder - it is not easy for someone with even a high skill to sneak past a lot of guards...unless he arranges for a distraction :sneaky:




Let me see if I understand the mechanic. Mr. Sneaker with Stealth 6 (equivalent to having a 15- roll, right?) tries to sneak past some Tom, Dick, and Harry. Mr. Sneaker's player rolls 3d6 (say it comes up 9) and subtracts that from 11, making a +2 modifier to their Stealth (now effectively an 8?). The three people being snuck past have a relevant PER of 4. They roll 3d6 (generating a 7, 10, and 14) and subtract from 11 (making +4, +1, and -3) which they then add to their PER (making 8, 5, and 1). These numbers are then compared to the adjusted Stealth of the sneaky person, and if greater, then the person detected Mr. Sneaker?

That is about it :)

[SteveZilla]

Stealth 6 vs PER 4/4/4:
Rolls 9 Rolls 7/10/14
Equates to:
Stealth 8 vs PER 8/5/1
First person perceived the stealthy one (barely, made it evenly).

Compared to:
Stealth 15- vs PER 13-/13-/13-:
Rolls 9 (made it by 6)
Per 13-/13-/13- reduced by 6 to 7-/7-/7-
Rolls 7/10/14.
First person perceived the stealthy one (barely, made it evenly).

The two methods seem to work exactly the same, so it strikes me as just a matter of semantics. :)

[jaws]

About three years ago, my players started rolling all their 3d6 rolls with specifically-colored dice. I didn't question it till I saw things changing hands: other dice, miniatures, occasional cash---

seems they've concocted some sort of gambling game based on the sequencing of the values of each die as it's rolled... :lol:


Ok who need simplification of dice rolling, lets complicate it even further :P

It sound fun, You got the rules?

[Sean Waters]

Stealth 6 vs PER 4/4/4:
Rolls 9 Rolls 7/10/14
Equates to:
Stealth 8 vs PER 8/5/1
First person perceived the stealthy one (barely, made it evenly).

Compared to:
Stealth 15- vs PER 13-/13-/13-:
Rolls 9 (made it by 6)
Per 13-/13-/13- reduced by 6 to 7-/7-/7-
Rolls 7/10/14.
First person perceived the stealthy one (barely, made it evenly).

The two methods seem to work exactly the same, so it strikes me as just a matter of semantics. :)

Er...yes :thumbup:

[Warp9]

Speaking for myself, I prefer the illogical and counterintuitive "minus"

Well, actually, it might be cool if you'd like to sell me all your Hero books.

On the price, we'll be sure to keep it very low. :D

[Warp9]

I know there was a topic on this sometime in the recent past, but I can't seem to find it now. I know the standard way to roll to hit is 11 +(ocv-dcv of target) or less.

I have seen it be reworked to as

OCV +11 - (3d6) to determine the maximum DCV that you would have hit.

My question is could it be expressed mathematically the same as:

OCV + 3d6 vs DCV +11 ?

I am thinking that is the same number-wise, but I am sure that someone here has already worked out the math. I am trying to simplify the math for some new players that have experience with d20 style roll + mod vs target number style rolling. As well as this would allow you to keep a dcv somewhat hidden from the players

Thanks.
The "roll hight vs target number" concept appeals to me, but I guess that it is largely a matter of personal taste.

(and it is not because I like d20; I actually really dislike it.)

[Warp9]

So: 4d6 - what do you think?
:) :thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, actually, it might be cool if you'd like to sell me all your Hero books.

On the price, we'll be sure to keep it very low. :D

Excellent - you've gotten the point! "Sometimes high is good and sometimes low is good" isn't so counterintuitive after all.

[Duke Bushido]

It sound fun, You got the rules?

Not in their entirety, but briefly:

The first die determines the 'direction' of the sequence to win.
If it's a low roll, then the others must be higher. A high roll means the others must be lower.
The other dice must follow sequence. If the first die is a three, then the second must be higher than three, and the last higher than the second.

The sequence can run the wrong way, but it doesn't 'win.'

Okay, as best I understand it: (I've never asked, for fear it represents tacit approval, which might lead to something complicated or disruptive.)


WIN: Dice in sequence as determined by the first die. (no duplicates)For example, 1, 2, 3, or 2, 5, 6.
Three of a kind, except 1, 1, 1 and 6, 6, 6

Lose: Dice out of sequence.

Neither:
As best I can tell, this is not a 'lose,' but you have the chance to up the bet if you want to. Not clear on how or why.
the conditions of what I've come to think of as "do over"
Dice in reverse sequence as determined by first die. For example, 3, 2, 1.
Dice in correct sequence but one number duplicated: for example, 2, 4, 4 or 1, 5, 5.
Three of a Kind 1, 1, 1 or 6, 6, 6.

I don't know the justifications, or how the actual betting is done, or the scoring, etc.

But those seem to be the basic rules.

[Warp9]

Excellent - you've gotten the point! "Sometimes high is good and sometimes low is good" isn't so counterintuitive after all.

LOL

It is a matter of perspective.

I think of the "roll under" thing as doing the limbo. When you are doing the limbo, you try to get under the bar. Modifiers push the bar up or down. You want to push the bar up as high as possible so that it is easy to get under.


But I still like the "high roll" concept better.

I'd rather have you roll the dice and tell me what you got (OCV + roll = result). Then I can tell you whether or not you hit. (result vs Target Num)

And all I have to do is make one comparision against the relevant target number---a value which I'd prefigure if possible.


The standard way it is roll-add-subtract-compare

My way, the player rolls and adds, and I compare. It is much easier for me (no math, just a straight comparison), and I don't have to give out the target's DCV.



Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 19)

Player (rolls a 12 and adds OCV of 6) : "I got an 18"

Me (as GM, compares 18 to 19) : "you miss."

[Sean Waters]

I'd rather have the 'target' number as 10, rather than 11.

There's actually a pretty good reason: if it is 10, then it does not matter who rolls the dice.

If an NPC is attacking you you can roll your DCV against thier OCV to try and avoid them...and the maths works out the same either way. I like that extra flexibilty and player involvement.

[MorpheousXO]

The standard way it is roll-add-subtract-compare

My way, the player rolls and adds, and I compare. It is much easier for me (no math, just a straight comparison), and I don't have to give out the target's DCV.

This right here is one of the main reasons I endorse roll-high.

[MorpheousXO]

I'd rather have the 'target' number as 10, rather than 11.

There's actually a pretty good reason: if it is 10, then it does not matter who rolls the dice.

If an NPC is attacking you you can roll your DCV against thier OCV to try and avoid them...and the maths works out the same either way. I like that extra flexibilty and player involvement.

It's been a while, but the last thread of this I took a part in I believe I figured it out using 10. I'll have to see if I can track that down since it seems like this thread is actually talking about rolling high again :celebrate

[steamteck]

LOL



But I still like the "high roll" concept better.

I'd rather have you roll the dice and tell me what you got (OCV + roll = result). Then I can tell you whether or not you hit. (result vs Target Num)

And all I have to do is make one comparision against the relevant target number---a value which I'd prefigure if possible.


The standard way it is roll-add-subtract-compare

My way, the player rolls and adds, and I compare. It is much easier for me (no math, just a straight comparison), and I don't have to give out the target's DCV.



Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 19)

Player (rolls a 12 and adds OCV of 6) : "I got an 18"

Me (as GM, compares 18 to 19) : "you miss."


I am completely baffled why the above example wouldn't work both ways, over or under

Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 8)

Player (rolls a 12 "I got an 12"

Me (as GM, compares 12 to 8) : "you miss."

This would never actually happen to me I have to admit because for all our groups 2 decade plus history The GM has always rolled the dice. ( but that's another charged discussion) It just preference nothing more there is no right or wrong way. What's easier for one person is harder for another. However, either way is so bloody simple compared to 90% of the other mechanics is 90% of the games that the question is pointless from a "make it simpler "point of view
Now, some people do have a very strong opinion on this stuff. I'm one of them but I realize its just my persona aesthetics. To me roll under just makes so much sense and is so elegant and reinforces the reality. To you its just an annoying mechanic. To me I guess the roll under number is the "good zone" and a larger one makes the character seem more competent. The other way doesn't give me that.
Again, all my reasons are preference, nothing that has been posted tells me the math is easier either way. It ALL seems personal preference to me.

[MorpheousXO]

Okidoki, found that old post. Hmm... ok, on skills it was set up as all modifiers affect the roll, both positive and negative, and you always want to roll 13+. Changing that to a 10 would mean just having a basic -3 on everything, I think. My brain isn't at full functionality at the moment, takes a bit to warm up to this kinda stuff since I don't do it very often.

In any case, I think I'm gonna try to write up the rules for this (and create the table for Succeed/Fail by Half). I'll post them here when they're done since things are a bit spread out in the last thread. I'll also work up a few optional ways, which basically is just deciding where and how to work with the modifiers.

[ghost-angel]

LOL

It is a matter of perspective.

I think of the "roll under" thing as doing the limbo. When you are doing the limbo, you try to get under the bar. Modifiers push the bar up or down. You want to push the bar up as high as possible so that it is easy to get under.


But I still like the "high roll" concept better.

I'd rather have you roll the dice and tell me what you got (OCV + roll = result). Then I can tell you whether or not you hit. (result vs Target Num)

And all I have to do is make one comparision against the relevant target number---a value which I'd prefigure if possible.


The standard way it is roll-add-subtract-compare

My way, the player rolls and adds, and I compare. It is much easier for me (no math, just a straight comparison), and I don't have to give out the target's DCV.

Got an example of the roll-add-subtract-compare...

Because currently all my combat rolls are Roll-Subtract-Compare.

Not adding the 11+OCV ahead of time is like not adding all your attack bonuses in D20 ahead of time - dumb.

[Warp9]

I am completely baffled why the above example wouldn't work both ways, over or under

Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 8)

Player (rolls a 12 "I got an 12"

Me (as GM, compares 12 to 8) : "you miss."

How are you getting TN:8 in this case?

Is it a given number which was already written down on the character sheet, or is it something you had to figure out when you learned that an OCV 6 attacker was trying to hit somebody with a DCV of 9 ?

[Warp9]

Got an example of the roll-add-subtract-compare...

Because currently all my combat rolls are Roll-Subtract-Compare.

Not adding the 11+OCV ahead of time is like not adding all your attack bonuses in D20 ahead of time - dumb.
Even if you cut the add out of "roll-add-subtract-compare" you've still got the subtract part to take care of.

If I let the player roll and add, all I have to do is compare.

[ghost-angel]

I roll and subtract and let the GM compare...

What's the difference?

[Warp9]

I roll and subtract and let the GM compare...

What's the difference?
That does make things pretty simple for the GM.

But how would you do that if the GM doesn't tell you the DCV of your target?

[ghost-angel]

(11+OCV+Modifiers) - ROLL = DCV Hit.

The part in () is done before so it looks like:

17-Roll = DCV Hit.

The GM Compares. I don't need the DCV. roll-subtract-compaire. Easy as any other method.

[Warp9]

(11+OCV+Modifiers) - ROLL = DCV Hit.

The part in () is done before so it looks like:

17-Roll = DCV Hit.

The GM Compares. I don't need the DCV. roll-subtract-compaire. Easy as any other method.
Fair enough. :)

[Maur]

Though one could quickly figure out what the DCV was when using an Autofire weapon just based on the roll and how many rounds roll into the target. I think that is the reason that our GM just tells us the DCV. It does create some metagaming (such as how much OCV could be shaved off for DCs and still reliably hit the target).

[Netzilla]

Though one could quickly figure out what the DCV was when using an Autofire weapon just based on the roll and how many rounds roll into the target. I think that is the reason that our GM just tells us the DCV. It does create some metagaming (such as how much OCV could be shaved off for DCs and still reliably hit the target).

Eh, most attempts to conceal DCV fail after a handful of to-hit rolls anyway (unless the target has a lot of levels or MA Maneuvers to use). It's kind of like SPD in that way. OCV + 11 - Roll = DCV isn't really about concealing the DCV as much as off-loading some work from the GM, IMO.

[MorpheousXO]

Ok, after pattering around in some other forums, I finally went and did everything. Special Thanks go to Gazza who did Part 1, which I modified for Part 2, and for the first part of the formula to figure out Success by Half.

Skills

Part 1 - Lucky 13 (By Gazza)

The basic idea is "lucky 13". For any skill roll, you want to get a total of 13 or better. It's easy to remember (13 being a common unlucky number for the superstitious), and by a coincidence rolling a 13 or more on 3d6 has the exact same probability of rolling an 8 or less - the old "familiarity" skill roll.

For 1 point, you get a +0 skill. (Everyman skills that are familiarity already grant this, as per the normal rules).

For 2 points, for things like Knowledge Skills, Professional Skills, and so forth, you get a +3 skill. (Which works out to an 10 or more, or an 11 or less). Each additional +1 to the skill costs an extra point. Alternatively, you can pay 3 points and get a roll equal to 1 + CHA/5 (so with an INT of 13, 3 points gets you a +4 skill).

For 3 points for most skills (or 2 points for skills like Forgery - I never noticed these exceptions until one of my players pointed it out) you get a roll equal to 1 + CHA/5 for the appropriate characteristic, and each extra +1 to the roll costs +2 points. (So if you have a DEX of 20, 3 points gives you a Combat Driving +5 skill).

Penalties and bonuses to skill rolls (including those from levels, environmental concerns, or whatever) are applied directly to the roll, always with the goal of getting a result of 13 or more.

All characteristic rolls are at 1+CHA/5 (a brick with STR 50 has a +11 on his STR characteristic roll).

EXAMPLE CHARACTER FRAGMENT:
STR 10 (+3)
DEX 14 (+4)
CON 20 (+5)
BODY 10 (+3)
INT 28 (+7)
EGO 11 (+3)
PRE 15 (+4)
COM 5 (+2)

Combat Piloting +5 (5 points), Oratory +4 (3 points), Stealth +4 (3 points), KS: Game Mechanics +7 (3 points, based on INT).

Part 2 - Basing off of 10.

This is very similar to the previous way of doing things, but instead of 13 you use 10. Basically it's aethstetic, since the only thing that you change is the value of the different levels of skill points.

For 1 point, you get a -3 skill. (Everyman skills that are familiarity already grant this, as per the normal rules).

For 2 points, for things like Knowledge Skills, Professional Skills, and so forth, you get a +0 skill. (Which works out to an 10 or more, or an 11 or less). Each additional +1 to the skill costs an extra point. Alternatively, you can pay 3 points and get a roll equal to 1 + CHA/5 (so with an INT of 13, 3 points gets you a +4 skill).

For 3 points for most skills (or 2 points for skills like Forgery - I never noticed these exceptions until one of my players pointed it out) you get a roll equal to CHA/5-2 for the appropriate characteristic, and each extra +1 to the roll costs +2 points. (So if you have a DEX of 20, 3 points gives you a Combat Driving +5 skill).

Not a big change. A Bigger change would actually be changing the way that CHA bonuses are calculated.

Part 3 - More D&D in style.

Ok, base of 10 again. Now, the regular roll is 9-, the opposite of this is 12, to get 10 you need a negative somewhere. Let's put it in the CHA calculations. Players generally start with a 10 in Primary CHA, so let's just make that 0. Now you have +1 at 13 and +2 at 18 (rounding the 5). But for less than 10 stats, you have -1 at 7, and -2 at 2. This allows the base to be 10. Skills are still done as a straight bonus to your roll after the initial purchase. Now to put the pricing down.

Familiarities grant a -3 to your roll.

Non CHA based skills grant +0 to your roll.

CHA based skills grant your CHA bonus to your roll.

If you're allowing them, Non proficient use of a skill give -5 to a roll (the old 6-).

Everything else works the same, afterall, +1 to a skill is still +1 to a skill.

EXAMPLE CHARACTER FRAGMENT:
STR 10 (+0)
DEX 14 (+1)
CON 20 (+2)
BODY 10 (+0)
INT 28 (+4)
EGO 11 (+0)
PRE 15 (+1)
COM 5 (-1)

Combat Piloting +2 (5 points), Oratory +1 (3 points), Stealth +1 (3 points), KS: Game Mechanics +4 (3 points, based on INT).

Part 4 - Modifying the Modifiers.

This will be brief unless people want me to expound. How you place your modifiers can really change the feel. You can have all of the modifiers change the roll, such as how Lucky 13 does it, or you could split it up in various ways. Bonuses add to roll, penalties add to Target Number. Internal Modifiers add to roll, Outside Modifiers add to Target Number. Heck, even Bonuses Subtract from Target Number, Penalties subtract from Roll. Will make up some examples if wanted.

Part 5 - Combat

Pretty simple, actually. 3d6+OCV+Modifiers compared to (DCV+Modifiers)+10. While it might sound a bit complicated for some to always add up the DCV and the Modifiers THEN add the 10 in at the end right before the comparison, in actuallity it's not very hard, and the only time that it really becomes necessary to do this is when DCV get's halved. Technically that's the only time you have to add the 10 in last, or rather just subtract the ten from your normal modified DCV, half the result, then add the 10 back in.

Part 6 - Succeed by Half

This is the only part that actually has to get more complicated in order to work the same way in roll high as in roll under. As long as you have a handy dandy table, though, it won't be very hard.

Ok, so 9- you succeed when rolling a 5- (assuming rounding in players favor). Well, let's stick with even numbers for ease of translation. 10- is a 5-, so, 10- = 11 and 5- = 16. a base of 10 means you succeed if you roll 17+. Got it then. Gazza's original Formula of 17+(X/2) does work for figuring things out. Granted, that's if you aren't changing the target number, I think. Let me try some examples out.

17+[(X/2)+({TN-10}/2)]

skill of +4
Target Number = 12

17+[4/2)+({12-10}/2)]=20

13- 7- = 16

hmm... ok, well, I'm pretty sure my formula works, but there's something wonky in the conversion for my checking against the old system where everything turns out at 16 or 17 depending on how you round the odd numbers. Probably has something to do with the way bonuses are different or something.

Ok, I think that's everything, if I missed something, please point it out for me and I'll fix it!

[Hugh Neilson]

Well...that certainly looks much simpler than rolling low, doesn't it? ;)

[archermoo]

The standard way it is roll-add-subtract-compare

My way, the player rolls and adds, and I compare. It is much easier for me (no math, just a straight comparison), and I don't have to give out the target's DCV.


This right here is one of the main reasons I endorse roll-high.

You do realize that that simplification doesn't require a shift to roll high, right?

[Warp9]

(11+OCV+Modifiers) - ROLL = DCV Hit.

The part in () is done before so it looks like:

17-Roll = DCV Hit.

The GM Compares. I don't need the DCV. roll-subtract-compaire. Easy as any other method.
As I said above, I agree that your method doesn't not require any more from the GM than mine does.

But I will add one comment.

As I understand it you are dealing with 3 numbers:

(A) Net Offense Value, which is OCV + 11 (high numbers are good)

(B) the Roll (low numbers are good)

(C) Net Result (high numbers are good)

The final result needs to be high. The reason that the roll needs to be low is because it gets subtracted, and, in order to get a high number, it is better subtract a low number.

[ghost-angel]

As I said above, I agree that your method doesn't not require any more from the GM than mine does.

But I will add one comment.

As I understand it you are dealing with 3 numbers:

(A) Net Offense Value, which is OCV + 11 (high numbers are good)

(B) the Roll (low numbers are good)

(C) Net Result (high numbers are good)

The final result needs to be high. The reason that the roll needs to be low is because it gets subtracted, and, in order to get a high number, it is better subtract a low number.

Hence "Roll Under"

Look - I'm not arguing one method as better than the other - I'm saying that neither method is superior and changing it is simply changing it to make a change.

[Warp9]

Look - I'm not arguing one method as better than the other - I'm saying that neither method is superior and changing it is simply changing it to make a change.
Again I agree that, from a mathematical point, the two methods are the same.


Hence "Roll Under"

I guess I am getting back to the psychological reasons why I prefer one method over the other.

In your method, in terms of the the net result that they report back to you, high is better. And the players know that they need a high number. The roll is actually a penalty; they'd be better off not rolling at all.

That gets back to some of the things Sean said about "rolling for the enemy."


And it reminds me of a story one of my professors once told me:

There were two candy shops which were located fairly close together, they sold mostly the same candy at pretty much the same price. But my professor observed that one store was very popular while the other was not. He asked the owner of the more popular shop why this difference in popularity existed when the two shops seemed so similar. The owner answered that the reason was simple. . . .

Both stores sold candy by the pound. But in the other (less popular) store, the policy was to place a large amount of candy of the scale and then take candy away until the requested weight was reached (the customers saw the candy being taken away). The policy in the more popular store was to initially put a smallar amount of candy on the scale, and then add candy until the right amount was reached. This difference created a specific impression in the customer's mind.

In your 11+OCV-roll set up, the players know that they want a high number but the roll is being used against them (it is a negative thing).

My way, the roll is on their side; it is a positive thing.

But, in the end it is still mathematically the same, so I'm not sure that any of this stuff is all that important.

[MorpheousXO]

Hence "Roll Under"

Look - I'm not arguing one method as better than the other - I'm saying that neither method is superior and changing it is simply changing it to make a change.

I actually agree that neither form is superior to the other, and that for most people switching to roll high wouldn't be a good idea because they are already used to roll under. I do think it's more than changing it just to make a change. Aesthetics are very important, sometime irrationally so (hence people perceiving one way as being harder than the other). I just personally prefer roll high, and would love if they'd include BOTH in the next version of HERO (many years from now), although I actually doubt it'll happen mainly due to perception and aesthetic.

That's fine, actually, cause I can still run it either way without messing anything up. :)

[MorpheousXO]

In your 11+OCV-roll set up, the players know that they want a high number but the roll is being used against them (it is a negative thing).

My way, the roll is on their side; it is a positive thing.

But, in the end it is still mathematically the same, so I'm not sure that any of this stuff is all that important.

And here we have (mainly in the stuff I snipped for brevity) a perfect example of perception and aesthetics making all the difference. So I endorse both, with a heavy leaning towards roll-high due to personal perceptions and aesthetics. :D

[steamteck]

How are you getting TN:8 in this case?

Is it a given number which was already written down on the character sheet, or is it something you had to figure out when you learned that an OCV 6 attacker was trying to hit somebody with a DCV of 9 ?


Its what I figured out comparing the OCV and DCV. :confused: Are you trying to make a point? Your candy reference doesn't hold up for me though because of my perspective on the rolls i mentioned earlier. I feel like my character seems more badass with roll under. I guess you fell more people subjectively feel your way. I dunno. No way to know. Whichever way floats your boat I suppose.

[steamteck]

In your 11+OCV-roll set up, the players know that they want a high number but the roll is being used against them (it is a negative thing).

My way, the roll is on their side; it is a positive thing.

But, in the end it is still mathematically the same, so I'm not sure that any of this stuff is all that important.

See too me I see that high number I have and any under that is mine( Bwhahahaha!) and I feel wow! I'm bad! Perception is so variable.

[Warp9]

Its what I figured out comparing the OCV and DCV. :confused:

But you didn't mention that comparison in your example. . . .



Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 8)

Player (rolls a 12 "I got an 12"

Me (as GM, compares 12 to 8) : "you miss."

So what you really meant was that you proceed as follows. . . .

Step 1: --- Compute Target Number : 11+OCV-DCV = TN = 8
Step 2: --- roll the dice : Player rolls dice and tells you the result.
Step 3: --- compare the result to the target number

If that is what you were doing then you add an extra step which I don't have.

I don't need to compute the target number because it is pre-figured. Of course, ghost-angel's method would lead to the same result as mine, in terms of having everything precomputed.



Are you trying to make a point? Your candy reference doesn't hold up for me though because of my perspective on the rolls i mentioned earlier. I feel like my character seems more badass with roll under.
I would tend to describe the roll under process as something similar to playing Limbo, you want to get under the bar.

However, ghost-angel's method is clearly a set up where higher is better, but the roll hurts you---everything else is high and the roll is a penalty.

[Warp9]

See too me I see that high number I have and any under that is mine( Bwhahahaha!) and I feel wow! I'm bad! Perception is so variable.
I agree that perception is highly variable.

But is what you are talking about really different from having a high OCV, or having a "+12" on your offense roll?

[Sean Waters]

OK, so roll high, roll low doesn't actually make any difference to the probabilities, it is all a matter of perception. we are all, I hope, on that page.

5ER gives some alternate ways to make the rolls, although all based on the same 'roll low' idea.

Hero sells itself as a toolkit.

Given the above, what would be so bad about including 'roll high' as an option?

OK, so something that would change the maths is this: change the system from target 11 to target 10.

Why? Well, look, if I want to roll to hit someone, I roll 3d6, and modify by OCV/DCV. Example: OCV 8 against DCV 6: (8-6+11)=13 or less. Cool.

What though, if you want to turn that round and have players roll to 'dodge'?

If I'm being attacked and I want to roll to AVOID being hit, I just turn it round. Right? Not quite: (6-8+11)=9 or less.

13 or less is an 83% chance of succeeding. 9 or less is a 37% chance of succeeding. That adds up to more than 100%. The calculation is, in fact, fundamentally different if you 'roll defence': it is (DCV-OCV+9) or less.

This is even more important where you have opposed skill rolls. If, for instance, someone had stealth with 5 bonus levels (from skill levels and characteristics) and an opponent has 3 bonus levels with PER, it makes a big difference NOW who is the 'aggressor' because the odds are stacked in favour of the person who makes the roll. Change the target number and that dichotomy goes away.

Now if (using the above combat example) the target number were 10 (or 11 if you want to roll high) suddenly you can switch the numbers round without disrupting the odds:

(8-6+10)=12 or less is a 74% chance of sucess.

(6-8+10)=8 or less is a 26% chance of success.

...and it all makes sense, and it wouldn't make any difference whether you rolled to attack or defend an action, combat or non-combat. That, to my mind, is a fundamental change that has a real impact beyond individual perception. I hope everyone can see the advantage of that.:celebrate

[MorpheousXO]

Well, I have nothing to add to Sean's post, and after all this talk of perception if no one is on that page then they need to get their eyes checked. In any case, I'm off to bed (work overnights), ciao for now everyone!

[Sean Waters]

Well, I have nothing to add to Sean's post, and after all this talk of perception if no one is on that page then they need to get their eyes checked. In any case, I'm off to bed (work overnights), ciao for now everyone!

Night John Boy! :D

[Kdansky]

Yeah, the 10- roll makes sense.

Although I use opposing rolls anyway in these cases (stealth vs per) :)

[SteveZilla]

Excellent - you've gotten the point! "Sometimes high is good and sometimes low is good" isn't so counterintuitive after all.

Mostly because what is good or bad is relative to who is talking?

Character A attacks Character B and rolls a 3:

Character A: :D:thumbup:

Character B: :ugly::thumbdown


Same roll, different opinions. :)

[SteveZilla]

OK, so something that would change the maths is this: change the system from target 11 to target 10.

Why? Well, look, if I want to roll to hit someone, I roll 3d6, and modify by OCV/DCV. Example: OCV 8 against DCV 6: (8-6+11)=13 or less. Cool.

What though, if you want to turn that round and have players roll to 'dodge'?

If I'm being attacked and I want to roll to AVOID being hit, I just turn it round. Right? Not quite: (6-8+11)=9 or less.

That's because with a "base" of 11 or less (for equal combatants like 8 OCV vs 8 DCV) introduces a bias. For equal combatants, the attack is 11 or less, or a 62.5% chance of success (37.5% chance for failure).


13 or less is an 83% chance of succeeding. 9 or less is a 37% chance of succeeding. That adds up to more than 100%. The calculation is, in fact, fundamentally different if you 'roll defense': it is (DCV-OCV+9) or less.

This is even more important where you have opposed skill rolls. If, for instance, someone had stealth with 5 bonus levels (from skill levels and characteristics) and an opponent has 3 bonus levels with PER, it makes a big difference NOW who is the 'aggressor' because the odds are stacked in favour of the person who makes the roll. Change the target number and that dichotomy goes away.

Opposed skill rolls are not done the same way as combat. Each person makes their own roll, the second roll (the "reactor", if you will) is modified by how much the first (the "actor", if you will) is made by.


Now if (using the above combat example) the target number were 10 (or 11 if you want to roll high) suddenly you can switch the numbers round without disrupting the odds:

(8-6+10)=12 or less is a 74% chance of success.

(6-8+10)=8 or less is a 26% chance of success.

...and it all makes sense, and it wouldn't make any difference whether you rolled to attack or defend an action, combat or non-combat. That, to my mind, is a fundamental change that has a real impact beyond individual perception. I hope everyone can see the advantage of that.:celebrate

Except that such a change reduces the chances of hitting one's target. This has the consequence of changing the balance between offensive and defensive powers, and can also make combats less fun for the players ("Darn! I missed again!") and also makes them longer.

[Sean Waters]

That's because with a "base" of 11 or less (for equal combatants like 8 OCV vs 8 DCV) introduces a bias. For equal combatants, the attack is 11 or less, or a 62.5% chance of success (37.5% chance for failure).

Agreed.


Opposed skill rolls are not done the same way as combat. Each person makes their own roll, the second roll (the "reactor", if you will) is modified by how much the first (the "actor", if you will) is made by.

Thing is, I'm trying to sell the idea of changing skill use to be more like combat, so we just use a single resolution mechanic across the board. This has the advantage that you then only need one roll for an opposed task, rather than two (OK, OK, I can see a way to get round that, but I don't want to do it that way; I like the idea of a single mechanic).


Except that such a change reduces the chances of hitting one's target. This has the consequence of changing the balance between offensive and defensive powers, and can also make combats less fun for the players ("Darn! I missed again!") and also makes them longer.

I accept that too, but I'm not sure how much force the argument carries; why stop at 11-: why not make the default position 14- and you hit? I don't think that a shift to 10- would substantially alter game balance and, if people felt that combat WAS taking too long, wel, they should be encouraged to buy 1 or more OCV levels, perhaps at a discount.

[Hugh Neilson]

I accept that too, but I'm not sure how much force the argument carries; why stop at 11-: why not make the default position 14- and you hit? I don't think that a shift to 10- would substantially alter game balance and, if people felt that combat WAS taking too long, wel, they should be encouraged to buy 1 or more OCV levels, perhaps at a discount.

You can set the baseline wherever you want. I think 11- reflects the fact that people find a game where they generally connect and have some impact more satisfying than a game consisting of extensive die rolling until someone finally connects. Moving the goalposts would likely have no results other than people buying different levels of OCV and DCV bonuses to get back to where they started.

[Sean Waters]

You can set the baseline wherever you want. I think 11- reflects the fact that people find a game where they generally connect and have some impact more satisfying than a game consisting of extensive die rolling until someone finally connects. Moving the goalposts would likely have no results other than people buying different levels of OCV and DCV bonuses to get back to where they started.

Initially I don't doubt it, but in time it would just be normal and there is a specific, good reason why 10- would be better for the game - either party to an interaction can roll, using the same formula - which I think would be useful GM tool.

[Maur]

Well, if you shift from 3d6 to 4d6 then the 50% mark actually lands on a number rather than between two of the digital results.

mean 3d6 = 10.5, HERO rounds in favor of the PC, so 11.
mean 4d6 = 14

[PhilFleischmann]

Well, if you shift from 3d6 to 4d6 then the 50% mark actually lands on a number rather than between two of the digital results.

mean 3d6 = 10.5, HERO rounds in favor of the PC, so 11.
mean 4d6 = 14
And the "problem" with that is that "14 or less" on 4d6, doesn't give you a 50% probability. It's 55.63%. Which is fine, if that's what you want. There is no "X or less" that gives you 50% with an even number of dice.

[steamteck]

But you didn't mention that comparison in your example. . . .


So what you really meant was that you proceed as follows. . . .

Step 1: --- Compute Target Number : 11+OCV-DCV = TN = 8
Step 2: --- roll the dice : Player rolls dice and tells you the result.
Step 3: --- compare the result to the target number

If that is what you were doing then you add an extra step which I don't have.

I don't need to compute the target number because it is pre-figured. Of course, ghost-angel's method would lead to the same result as mine, in terms of having everything precomputed.


.

I'm sorry I'm being dull about this . I don't understand how its anymore pre figured than the other way. Could you run that by me again.

[Warp9]

I'm sorry I'm being dull about this . I don't understand how its anymore pre figured than the other way. Could you run that by me again.

If I understand what you are doing correctly, then you need to do some math to get that target number during combat.

However, it is possible to set things up so that things are simpler for the GM, this statement is true both for both ghost-angle's method, and my method.

In my method, the target number is DCV + 10. And that value has nothing to do with any particular attacker. This situation allows me to have already figured the target numbers before the game starts. For example, if a character has a DCV of 9, then I already know that anybody targeting him will need a 19 to hit (or 15 if the target is surprised). And that number would already be written on the character sheet. That is not something I have to re-figure based on each different opponent.

So, if a player attacks this foe during the game, all I do is have him tell me what he got on the "to hit" roll. If that number is 19+, then there is a hit.

In your example, when you gave the TN of 8, that was not something which you would have already figured in advance. That is something you would have had to figure out after you knew that an OCV 6 attacker was trying to hit a DCV 9 target.

[steamteck]

Ok I see you just add the difference to your roll instead of modifying the target number. you just do the calculations at a different time seems to me. Anyway either calculation time is so insignificant doesn't really matter. I guess its easier on the GM if the players are figuring that part out but for us the GM rolls the dice ( yet another reason some say we're evil )

[Warp9]

Ok I see you just add the difference to your roll instead of modifying the target number. you just do the calculations at a different time seems to me.

That is a part of it, but it is not just a matter of when.

It is also a matter of figuring the target number one time VS figuring it again and again for every new attacker.



Anyway either calculation time is so insignificant doesn't really matter.

The time taken is fairly small, but those kind of things do add up, especially if I'm getting tired.

And, as a GM, I have a number of other things on my mind that I'd rather be focusing on.






I guess its easier on the GM if the players are figuring that part out but for us the GM rolls the dice ( yet another reason some say we're evil )


That does make a bit of a difference. Although, even if you are doing everything yourself, it is still a bit easier to have things prefigured (either with a method like ghost-angle's, or mine).

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, if you shift from 3d6 to 4d6 then the 50% mark actually lands on a number rather than between two of the digital results.

mean 3d6 = 10.5, HERO rounds in favor of the PC, so 11.
mean 4d6 = 14


And the "problem" with that is that "14 or less" on 4d6, doesn't give you a 50% probability. It's 55.63%. Which is fine, if that's what you want. There is no "X or less" that gives you 50% with an even number of dice.

As Phil says. 50% of 3d6 rolls will come up 10 or less, so Sean's proposal makes the base probability of success 50%. I don't see that as unworkable, just a change from the current system which provides that success is more likely than failure.

[ghost-angel]

That is a part of it, but it is not just a matter of when.

It is also a matter of figuring the target number one time VS figuring it again and again for every new attacker.

Eh.... either I don't get what you're saying or that's wrong.

Say you have the defender's target is 19 the Attacker is doing AttackLevel+Roll and you want it to be 19 or higher.

Under the current method the DCV is say, 9 you want the AttackLevel-Roll to be 9 or higher.

You're just reversing things, not changing any calculations, or redoing any calculations or ... well, anything.

Remember - the "Standard" Hero method is a really, well stupid to do it, the Alternate Method described right below it in the book (11+OCV-Roll) is turning your Attack Roll into an Attack Skill type method.

Skills are 9+CHAR/5 and Attack Skill is 11+DEX/3. There's no need to "recalculate" anything.

Hero really needs to do away with that 11+OCV-DCV=Roll Needed equation, it is beyond any doubt the single most idiotic equation/method I have ever seen in my entire life.

[Warp9]

Eh.... either I don't get what you're saying or that's wrong.

Say you have the defender's target is 19 the Attacker is doing AttackLevel+Roll and you want it to be 19 or higher.

Under the current method the DCV is say, 9 you want the AttackLevel-Roll to be 9 or higher.

But in the example, steamteck was looking for a target number of 8. . . .



I am completely baffled why the above example wouldn't work both ways, over or under

Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 8)

Player (rolls a 12 "I got an 12"

Me (as GM, compares 12 to 8) : "you miss."


That is not 11+OCV-Roll

That is TN = 11+OCV-DCV

[ghost-angel]

But in the example, steamteck was looking for a target number of 8. . .

Eh... then you want the AttackSkill-Roll to be 8 or greater. . .

[Warp9]

Eh... then you want the AttackSkill-Roll to be 8 or greater. . .

But wouldn't that be against a DCV of 8?

[ghost-angel]

But wouldn't that be against a DCV of 8?

Yeah... in the standard Roll Under Hero model the DCV IS the target number.

Same as your system only with a - instead of a +

In fact you could argue my method is easier because you don't have to add the Target's DCV to ANYTHING. IT, as is, unmodified number on the Character is your Target Number.

[Warp9]

Yeah... in the standard Roll Under Hero model the DCV IS the target number.

Same as your system only with a - instead of a +

In fact you could argue my method is easier because you don't have to add the Target's DCV to ANYTHING. IT, as is, unmodified number on the Character is your Target Number.
That is understood, but I would point out that steamteck and I were not discussing your method.

We were discussing a character with an OCV of 6 against a target with a DCV of 9, and steamteck describes this situation as resulting in a target number of 8.

Again, going back to the relevant post by steamteck. . . .


I am completely baffled why the above example wouldn't work both ways, over or under

Example:

The PC has an OCV of 6, the Target has a DCV of 9 (TN : 8)

Player (rolls a 12 "I got an 12"

Me (as GM, compares 12 to 8) : "you miss."


And, in that particular situation, you get a TN of 8 by 11+OCV-DCV.

In your method, the TN would be 9

In my method, the TN would be 19

[steamteck]

That is understood, but I would point out that steamteck and I were not discussing your method.

We were discussing a character with an OCV of 6 against a target with a DCV of 9, and steamteck describes this situation as resulting in a target number of 8.

Again, going back to the relevant post by steamteck. . . .



And, in that particular situation, you get a TN of 8 by 11+OCV-DCV.

In your method, the TN would be 9

In my method, the TN would be 19

Maybe you're right. Maybe its so automatic I mentally skip a step. I just don't see the skipage. You're just pinning down one number and loading the calculations onto the die roll instead of the target number it seems to me. If you guys find it easier go for it. I've tried about half a dozen of new rolling mechanics suggested here on the boards because I got so convinced and always went back. I don't either of us will convince the other but that's OK. HERO's all about choices and flexibility at long as no one's brain boggled alternate methods are good, gives more options . Maybe its me just being old and unadaptable.:idjit: Truth is I can run HERO combat faster than most any other system unless you get to reaaly simple stuff with very few options ( and whats the fun in that?) so I'm good.

[Maur]

And the "problem" with that is that "14 or less" on 4d6, doesn't give you a 50% probability. It's 55.63%. Which is fine, if that's what you want. There is no "X or less" that gives you 50% with an even number of dice.

Yes, but unlike 3d6, if you turn the roll around to roll high on 14+ instead of 14- you have the same constant to keep the percentages the same which is what I was doing, not trying to make it 50%.

[Jaxom]

Initially I don't doubt it, but in time it would just be normal and there is a specific, good reason why 10- would be better for the game - either party to an interaction can roll, using the same formula - which I think would be useful GM tool.

You've made this statement a couple of times now and I am not sure I understand what you mean.

Today, if the target is a 6-, either party can roll. One guy wants you to hit a 6-, the other wants you to roll a 7+. Doesn't matter who throws the dice...

Somehow, though, I get the impression that this is not what you mean. I think that you are saying that 10- for one guy is the same as 10+ for the other guy and you think that you can make the formulae work either direction using that magical number of 10. The problem is that this is not true. What is true is that 10- and 11+ are the same odds. 11- and 10+ are the same odds. I could show the mathematics using inequalities but that would just cause people to shut down...

And why do the odds matter? Because they are part of the basis of costs today. If you make someone more or less likely to hit, the value of armor relative to DEX and skill levels changes. Sure, you could make an arbitrary change in the target number, but it would change the flavor of the system.


I have generally avoided the "should we roll high or low" question because I look at it as an opinion and nothing more. I flinched when you initially proposed changing the math to use a 10+ Target instead of 11- because I knew it was mathematically equivalent but know that half the audience here doesn't get that or care and is just as likely to choose some other arbitrary number because they like it.

Algebra is a wonderful thing and it allows you to put numbers on either side of an equation with ease so you can take known OCV and DCV and figure out what you need to hit or take known OCV and figure out what DCV you would hit and in either case you can figure out how many +2 increments you made your hit by to figure out how many autofire shots hit. But when it comes down to actually changing the constant target from 11- to something else, just make sure that you actually test a couple of points in your formulae. The order in which you choose to add or subtract numbers is totally up to you and what you think is convenient as long as you do your algebra right. The second you change the direction of the dice-roll though (from low to high) you better understand at least algebra of inequalities and enough stats to know that basically you just multiplied the inequality with a (-1) (along with an offset to the zero point).

More simply put... If you plug in 0 DCV and 0 OCV, then you need to wind up with the same chance of hitting under either roll system (62.5%). If you plug in 6 OCV and 7 DCV you should wind up with a 50% chance of hitting.

If those test points don't work out to the same odds in the HERO formula and in whatever formula you are moving to then you are explicitly changing the odds distribution by changing your mechanic and you will either change the flavor of the campaign or change the relative value of powers and things.

As an example, change the base target from 11- to 8-. Now instead of hitting 62.5% of the time with my power, I only hit 26% of the time. I dunno about you, but I am spending a lot more points on DEX and skill levels and probably a bit less on defenses in that game. Or, by comparison, change the cost of a 1d6 EB from 5 to 10 and you'd get an almost identical change in the expected daamge done by a fixed number of points of EB. And yet if you suggested making that change to EB costs, you'd expect to get shouted off the boards.


So yeah, do algebra and knock yourself out with writing the formula any way you want... It's mental masturbation and no different from saying "add 52 to my OCV and your DCV because I like the number 52." But if you start changing the odds, expect people to make noise because you are actually changing the way the system plays and the balance of powers and points.

[SteveZilla]

Taking the current Roll Under for Combat formula and moving things around:
OCV + 11 - DCV = Roll

OCV + 11 = DCV + Roll

OCV - Roll = DCV - 11

This is the same mechanically/mathematically as the original. But then I will change it so that it uses Roll Over instead of Under, and I get:

OCV + Roll = DCV + 11

This is also mathematically the same (i.e., it follows 1:1 for every OCV/DCV/Roll combination to determine hit or miss) as the original formula. And this is what D&D does. :eek: Instead of adding 11, it adds 10.

But I think new players will take to this easier because they only have to do addition (d6+d6+d6+OCV). And changing to a Roll Over method makes it consistent with Damage Rolls.

The problem I see with using the Combat Rolls model (i.e., one roll for two people) is that skills there can be a significant amount of time between one Skill Roll and the second. The time between the rolls is immaterial, whereas Combat Rolls are always immediate.

It is entirely possible for one player to use his character's skill to do something, and then have left the game. Then another player uses their character's skill in opposition to the first. In either case, something will have to be noted -- either the amount the first one made their roll by (made it by 4), or the actual Skill Roll (Done with a value of 14-).

the problem with delaying the first character's skill roll (the second option above) is that it denies that player the opportunity to see that they didn't do so well and try again.

In the current Skill vs Skill system, the amount of the skill is immaterial. The only thing that matters is how much the first Skill Roll is made by. So an 11- that rolls a 4 is just as difficult to overcome as an 18- that rolls an 11.

The "easiest" way to turn the Skill Rolls around to be Roll Over would be to start with the standard formula [9 + STAT/5] and subtract that from 21. So an 11- roll would translate into: 21 - 11 = 10+. A Familiarity of 8- would be: 21 - 8 = 13+.

But there is a possible problem this translation introduces. Because for very high skills in the current system to translate, they'd produce negative values. A 70 STR Brick's STR Roll: 9 + (70/5) = 23 or less. To translate it'd be: 21 - 21 = -2 or more? I say possible because no matter what method is used, the Roll Value can be outside that possible of 3d6, like the original value for Mr. 70 Strength's STR Roll.

IMO, the big detriment to a Skill Roll system employing Roll Over is that bonuses would now be subtracted, and penalties would be added (Remember AD&D? :D).

[Warp9]

Maybe you're right. Maybe its so automatic I mentally skip a step. I just don't see the skipage. You're just pinning down one number and loading the calculations onto the die roll instead of the target number it seems to me. If you guys find it easier go for it. I've tried about half a dozen of new rolling mechanics suggested here on the boards because I got so convinced and always went back. I don't either of us will convince the other but that's OK. HERO's all about choices and flexibility at long as no one's brain boggled alternate methods are good, gives more options . Maybe its me just being old and unadaptable.:idjit: Truth is I can run HERO combat faster than most any other system unless you get to reaaly simple stuff with very few options ( and whats the fun in that?) so I'm good.
I guess it comes down to what works for you. :)

[ghost-angel]

But I think new players will take to this easier because they only have to do addition (d6+d6+d6+OCV). And changing to a Roll Over method makes it consistent with Damage Rolls.

I'm still trying to figure out why Addition is somehow inherently easier than Subtraction.

I refuse to believe people are that stupid and can't subtract.

[Warp9]

I refuse to believe people are that stupid and can't subtract.

First off, it is not really a matter that people can not subtract; it is a matter of what is easier and faster during the game.

Which brings us to the other part of your post:


I'm still trying to figure out why Addition is somehow inherently easier than Subtraction.


Maybe this information will help you out. . . .

From "Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math"

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62275.html


People generally find subtraction harder (and easier to make mistakes in) than addition, so we most often use addition to check subtraction

And another perspective:

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/mmathsubtract.htm


Since the human brain is much more adept at going forward than backward (notice that counting forward is easier than counting backwards, and adding is quicker than subtracting), it follows that any calculation that can use "forward" patterns would be easier. Adding is also much more accurate.

[Sean Waters]

I'm still trying to figure out why Addition is somehow inherently easier than Subtraction.

I refuse to believe people are that stupid and can't subtract.

I have an experiment for you.

First off, set up a spreadsheet to generate two columns of random number, say each column is 100 numbers long.

Drink 8 pints (we are adjusting your INT level here; work with me).

Add the first 50 numbers in each colum together.

Suntract the next 50 numbers in the first column fro the corresponding ones int he second.

Sleep it off.

When you wake up, let us know if you did better with the first 50 calculations or the second.

What?

[archermoo]

First off, it is not really a matter that people can not subtract; it is a matter of what is easier and faster during the game.

Which brings us to the other part of your post:



Maybe this information will help you out. . . .

From "Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math"

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62275.html



And another perspective:

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/mmathsubtract.htm

I guess I'm just a freak. I never found either of those posted assertions to be accurate. I don't have any more trouble counting backwards from 100 than I do counting forwards to 100. Nor is subtracting any more difficult than adding.

I'll also note that both of those links are just a case of "Given that I am right about subtraction being harder, this is what I do about it". I don't see any evidence that they are correct, other than their assertion that they are. And as their assertion goes counter to my experience it isn't overly convincing to me. Maybe it is just because I was taught both at the same time, as compliments of each other. I.e. 1+1=2, which means that 2-1=1.

[Sean Waters]

.................Somehow, though, I get the impression that this is not what you mean. I think that you are saying that 10- for one guy is the same as 10+ for the other guy and you think that you can make the formulae work either direction using that magical number of 10. The problem is that this is not true. What is true is that 10- and 11+ are the same odds. 11- and 10+ are the same odds. I could show the mathematics using inequalities but that would just cause people to shut down...

Yes, but 10- is a 50% chance. That is my point. It then doesn't matter if you roll OCV+10-DCV-3d6 or DCV+10-OCV-3d6, at least statistically.


And why do the odds matter? Because they are part of the basis of costs today. If you make someone more or less likely to hit, the value of armor relative to DEX and skill levels changes. Sure, you could make an arbitrary change in the target number, but it would change the flavor of the system.

You make it sound like someone actually thought this through. I don't think so, personally. Or, for that matter, that most people WOULD think it through if you made the change. It would have near to zero impact in character design, but might yield substantial gameplay benefits.



I have generally avoided the "should we roll high or low" question because I look at it as an opinion and nothing more. I flinched when you initially proposed changing the math to use a 10+ Target instead of 11- because I knew it was mathematically equivalent but know that half the audience here doesn't get that or care and is just as likely to choose some other arbitrary number because they like it.
..................................

Sorry for the clippage, but, just to be clear, the proposal I'm making works with 'roll low'. I'm with you on algebra being wonderful, but I have to disagree that with 0 DCV and 0 OCV you wind up at the same point: under the present system, flip the formula (but still roll low) and you go from a 37% chance of being MISSED to a 37% chance of being HIT. Balance the system on 10 or less, and THEN you can flip OCV and DCV (depending on whether you are atatcking or defending), still roll low, and the odds don't change.

That just feels so RIGHT :D

[PhilFleischmann]

Maybe this information will help you out. . . .

From "Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math"

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62275.html

And another perspective:

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/mmathsubtract.htm
Interesting. I suppose a more objective test (more objective than people just saying, "I don't find subtraction any more difficult than addition") would be to actually tes people. Give some people a test of, say, 100 addition problems, and a separate test of 100 subtraction problems, all to be worked out by hand. See which is completed faster, and which has fewer errors.

I suspect that the subtraction test will show more errors and take longer.

[Sean Waters]

Interesting. I suppose a more objective test (more objective than people just saying, "I don't find subtraction any more difficult than addition") would be to actually tes people. Give some people a test of, say, 100 addition problems, and a separate test of 100 subtraction problems, all to be worked out by hand. See which is completed faster, and which has fewer errors.

I suspect that the subtraction test will show more errors and take longer.


I quite agree. Especially if you've had 10 pints first :drink:

[archermoo]

I quite agree. Especially if you've had 10 pints first :drink:

Well, when I took similar such tests in school I scored basically the same, both time and accuracy wise, on addition and subtraction. And for that matter scored basically the same between multiplication and division. Of course there weren't any pints involved, but then again I don't like beer in the first place. :)

[ghost-angel]

First off, it is not really a matter that people can not subtract; it is a matter of what is easier and faster during the game.

Which brings us to the other part of your post:



Maybe this information will help you out. . . .

From "Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math"

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62275.html


And another perspective:

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/mmathsubtract.htm

I take back my statement about people.

That's so very very very sad.

[Warp9]

Interesting. I suppose a more objective test (more objective than people just saying, "I don't find subtraction any more difficult than addition") would be to actually tes people. Give some people a test of, say, 100 addition problems, and a separate test of 100 subtraction problems, all to be worked out by hand. See which is completed faster, and which has fewer errors.

I suspect that the subtraction test will show more errors and take longer.

Here is something from "The American Journal of Psychology" which clearly states that subtraction is harder than addition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0

In this study, times of subjects doing subtraction (page 23) were contrasted to the same subjects doing addition (on page 3).

[Warp9]

I take back my statement about people.

That's so very very very sad.

:drink:

[SteveZilla]

I'm still trying to figure out why Addition is somehow inherently easier than Subtraction.

I refuse to believe people are that stupid and can't subtract.

That's not what I said or even implied, GA. IMO it is easier to do one function (addition *or* subtraction) than it is to do both together. Just because it's easier doesn't mean that those who choose to do it that way are stupid.

[Sean Waters]

Well, when I took similar such tests in school I scored basically the same, both time and accuracy wise, on addition and subtraction. And for that matter scored basically the same between multiplication and division. Of course there weren't any pints involved, but then again I don't like beer in the first place. :)

Wow: a school that served shots! :drink:

I know I'm quicker at adding than subtracting, and whilst the difference with the sort of numbers we use in Hero is tiny, I doubt I'm in the minority. On this one at least :)

[ghost-angel]

That's not what I said or even implied, GA. IMO it is easier to do one function (addition *or* subtraction) than it is to do both together. Just because it's easier doesn't mean that those who choose to do it that way are stupid.

It's what just about everyone else is saying or implying. including math sites.

And you only do one at a time in Hero.

[Tonio]

Note that just because something is more difficult that something else, it doesn't mean that it's notably more difficult.

Just like something that costs $1,000.01 is more expensive than something that costs $1,000.00, just not notably so, substracting might be more difficult than adding, just not notably so. Just because you score the same in two tests, one involving only addition, the other involving just substraction, it doesn't mean one wasn't easier than the other. Might mean it wasn't notably so, or maybe it meant you took longer to do one.

I think people confuse "more difficult" with "substantially more difficult", and, to risk being ridiculed again, "less intuitive" with "nonsensical" or "requiring great stretches of the imagination". :p

[Sean Waters]

Note that just because something is more difficult that something else, it doesn't mean that it's notably more difficult.

Just like something that costs $1,000.01 is more expensive than something that costs $1,000.00, just not notably so, substracting might be more difficult than adding, just not notably so. Just because you score the same in two tests, one involving only addition, the other involving just substraction, it doesn't mean one wasn't easier than the other. Might mean it wasn't notably so, or maybe it meant you took longer to do one.

I think people confuse "more difficult" with "substantially more difficult", and, to risk being ridiculed again, "less intuitive" with "nonsensical" or "requiring great stretches of the imagination". :p

I ridicule you one more time! :doi:

[SteveZilla]

It's what just about everyone else is saying or implying. including math sites.

I doubt that the varous math sites quoted here in this thread take the tact that if a person preferrs to do it in a way that they find a little easier, they are stupid.

If there are two ways of doing something, and a person finds one of those ways a little easier than they other, why should they *not* choose that method? For fear of being called stupid? :rolleyes:


And you only do one at a time in Hero.

Yes, yes, we know that people actually don't literally do two (or more) mathematical operations at the same time. I'm referring to the whole process, not bit-by-bit -- the formula Roll=OCV-DCV+11 involves both an addition and a subtraction. Mentally changing gears from one to the other takes a minute amount of time, and it's also been shown that for many people subtraction is less "efficient" than addition.


True, the difference between adding and subtracting is small, but for many people it is there. Whether or not it is enough for them to want to change from the "standard" way it is presented is up to them. Choosing to do so does not label them as stupid.

[Jaxom]

You make it sound like someone actually thought this through. I don't think so, personally. Or, for that matter, that most people WOULD think it through if you made the change. It would have near to zero impact in character design, but might yield substantial gameplay benefits.

Well, if it was not thought out originally (which may be the case) the next four revisions changing point costs and all the arguments in the forums about what a point of DEX or a point of STR should cost *is* balanced around the forumlae that exist today. A change of one point is small but not negligible. I have not heard people suggesting larger ones but even a one-point shift is more than 10% for closely balanced opposition...


Sorry for the clippage, but, just to be clear, the proposal I'm making works with 'roll low'. I'm with you on algebra being wonderful, but I have to disagree that with 0 DCV and 0 OCV you wind up at the same point: under the present system, flip the formula (but still roll low) and you go from a 37% chance of being MISSED to a 37% chance of being HIT. Balance the system on 10 or less, and THEN you can flip OCV and DCV (depending on whether you are atatcking or defending), still roll low, and the odds don't change.

That just feels so RIGHT :D

Ok, I finally got where you're coming from but I think that your math is in error. That's the point of looking at the distributions... SteveZilla made the same mistake in his post when he said


OCV - Roll = DCV - 11

This is the same mechanically/mathematically as the original. But then I will change it so that it uses Roll Over instead of Under, and I get:

OCV + Roll = DCV + 11


This is why I very carefully said you want to use algebra of inequalities and understand probability distributions instead of just using algebra naively... Steve's math is ignoring the inequality...

Roll <= OCV +11 - DCV

Take the case where OCV and DCV are zero (or equal) and you get Roll <= 11 which is a 62.5% chance.

If you change the inequality (choose roll high) then you want to use

Roll >= OCV - DCV - <some constant>

If you take OCV and DCV of zero again, you should get

Roll >= <some constant> and if you want to say that you get the same odds (i.e. it doesn't matter which way you choose to roll, you get the same chance) then your constant when rolling high is 10.

Note that if you opt to use 10 instead of 11 in the original equation, then you get 11 instead of 10 in the follow-up. Whether you want to consider this a function of the algebra of inequalities or a function of probability curves (both of which could be argued), the fact remains that there is no number in a 3d6 distribution which allows you the same probabilities if you say "roll this or higher" or "roll this or lower". If you had a true integer mean (instead of 10.5) then you could use the true mean and base your number on that with the result you want. Rolling 4d6 and using the number 14, you get the behavior you want. As long as you are using 3d6 to roll to-hit though, if you change from roll-high to roll-low you cannot use the same offset without changing the odds of the roll no matter what offset you use.

Perhaps a better way of pointing this out is that under the current system with zero OCV and DCV you have a 62.5% chance of being hit (11 or lower to hit). If you don't change the constant but change the direction of the roll, you *don't* have a 62.5% chance of being missed. Instead you have roll 11 or higher to hit which is a 50% chance. If you were playing with 4d6 around 14, you really could change the direction of the roll with impunity but because it is 3d6 with a non-integral mean there is no integer value that you can ever pick that will behave the way you described.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you want and I understand the temptation. Run the numbers. 10 does not work for you any better than 11 does.

[ghost-angel]

I doubt that the varous math sites quoted here in this thread take the tact that if a person preferrs to do it in a way that they find a little easier, they are stupid.

If there are two ways of doing something, and a person finds one of those ways a little easier than they other, why should they *not* choose that method? For fear of being called stupid? :rolleyes:



Yes, yes, we know that people actually don't literally do two (or more) mathematical operations at the same time. I'm referring to the whole process, not bit-by-bit -- the formula Roll=OCV-DCV+11 involves both an addition and a subtraction. Mentally changing gears from one to the other takes a minute amount of time, and it's also been shown that for many people subtraction is less "efficient" than addition.


True, the difference between adding and subtracting is small, but for many people it is there. Whether or not it is enough for them to want to change from the "standard" way it is presented is up to them. Choosing to do so does not label them as stupid.

Edited Out. Nevermind.

It's apparent you've read neither the conversation nor the links posted.

[Warp9]

Note that just because something is more difficult that something else, it doesn't mean that it's notably more difficult.

Just like something that costs $1,000.01 is more expensive than something that costs $1,000.00, just not notably so, substracting might be more difficult than adding, just not notably so. Just because you score the same in two tests, one involving only addition, the other involving just substraction, it doesn't mean one wasn't easier than the other. Might mean it wasn't notably so, or maybe it meant you took longer to do one.

I think people confuse "more difficult" with "substantially more difficult", and, to risk being ridiculed again, "less intuitive" with "nonsensical" or "requiring great stretches of the imagination". :p

Actually the information from "The American Journal of Psychology" article would tend to indicate that there are some big differences. . . .

http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0#PPA3,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0#PPA23,M1



(from page 3)

The digits 1-9 inclusive, twenty of each, evenly distributed
in ten packs, differently arranged at each sitting, were
added five times over in five different sittings by each subject.
Kn., K., L., J., T., and B. served as subjects in this series.

(also from page 3)

The average times per digit added were as follows:
Kn, 1.09 sec.; K, 1.67; L, 1.28; J, 1.00; T, 1.03; B, 1.02.




(from page 23)

Subtraction is harder than addition. Introspective evidence
for this was general and the average time per digit subtracted
was longer:
Kn, 2.2; K, 2.6; L, 1.9; J, 1.5 (p. 3).

You'll note that, in some of the subjects, the average time per digit in subtraction was more than double that taken in addition, it ranged from 202%, to 148% per digit. I'd say that amounts to a significant time difference.

And as much as this kind of thing gets done during the game, that time could really add up.

[archermoo]

Actually the information from "The American Journal of Psychology" article would tend to indicate that there are some big differences. . . .

http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0#PPA3,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=ntcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=evidence+addition+is+easier+than+subtraction&source=web&ots=mvhfp09jK1&sig=yLfRyjZVXPalgfFrR47M1_h--V0#PPA23,M1



You'll note that, in some of the subjects, the average time per digit in subtraction was more than double that taken in addition, it ranged from 202%, to 148% per digit. I'd say that amounts to a significant time difference.

And as much as this kind of thing gets done during the game, that time could really add up.

Over an 8 hour play session we might be talking about a whole 60 or 70 extra seconds spent doing math. During that extra minute someone might have been able to go get another Mt. Dew...

[PhilFleischmann]

It isn't really a question of "stupidity" or of the mathematical difficulty of subtraction vs. addition. To a computer, not only are they of equal difficulty, they are the exact same operation.

But humans are not computers. Our brains don't necessarily work the same way. Most of us do a lot more addition than subtraction in our daily lives.

It's like reciting the alphabet - we'd probably all find that a very easy task, and "logically" reciting the aphabet backwards should be no more difficult. It is not more complex a task. A computer wouldn't notice any difference between the two. They even use the alphabet backwards as a drunk test sometimes. Does this mean that people are stupid, because they can't do something that is logically no more difficult than the thing they can do?

And for those of you who can do the "trick" of rapidly reciting the alphabet backwards, good for you. But it's probably because you've practiced it over and over, not because you've stored a list of the letters in an accessible array, like a computer, and can read them out in either order. If you can recite the alphabet backwards as fast as you can forwards, then try something that you haven't practiced backwards. For instance, try saying the pledge of allegience with the words in reverse order.* Can you do it as fast as you could say it forwards?

*Sean, and others from other countries can try something else: a common prayer, the lyrics to a song you know well, a famous passage from literature ("Question the is that be to not or be to").

[Warp9]

Over an 8 hour play session we might be talking about a whole 60 or 70 extra seconds spent doing math. During that extra minute someone might have been able to go get another Mt. Dew...
I would say it depends upon the specific game.

Although you are no doubt correct that there is not a great deal of overall time spent on the math stuff.

Still, many people do not like doing math. And if they could choose between an extra minute of doing subtraction, and going to get another Mt. Dew, IMO think that it would be a pretty clear choice. :king:

[steamteck]

I would say it depends upon the specific game.

Although you are no doubt correct that there is not a great deal of overall time spent on the math stuff.

Still, many people do not like doing math. And if they could choose between an extra minute of doing subtraction, and going to get another Mt. Dew, IMO think that it would be a pretty clear choice. :king:

Or the dew could speed you up to do the math!:D. I loves my dews gaming!

[Duke Bushido]

It just shows how The poor players are confused by different types of rolling mechanics:D

Actually, no.

It shows the mechanic is so easy to automatically follow that they are not only able to use the dice simultaneously for a whole different purpose, but bored enough to gamble on the results ;)

[Sean Waters]

Well, if it was not thought out originally (which may be the case) the next four revisions changing point costs and all the arguments in the forums about what a point of DEX or a point of STR should cost *is* balanced around the forumlae that exist today. A change of one point is small but not negligible. I have not heard people suggesting larger ones but even a one-point shift is more than 10% for closely balanced opposition...



Ok, I finally got where you're coming from but I think that your math is in error. That's the point of looking at the distributions... SteveZilla made the same mistake in his post when he said



This is why I very carefully said you want to use algebra of inequalities and understand probability distributions instead of just using algebra naively... Steve's math is ignoring the inequality...

Roll <= OCV +11 - DCV

Take the case where OCV and DCV are zero (or equal) and you get Roll <= 11 which is a 62.5% chance.

If you change the inequality (choose roll high) then you want to use

Roll >= OCV - DCV - <some constant>

If you take OCV and DCV of zero again, you should get

Roll >= <some constant> and if you want to say that you get the same odds (i.e. it doesn't matter which way you choose to roll, you get the same chance) then your constant when rolling high is 10.

Note that if you opt to use 10 instead of 11 in the original equation, then you get 11 instead of 10 in the follow-up. Whether you want to consider this a function of the algebra of inequalities or a function of probability curves (both of which could be argued), the fact remains that there is no number in a 3d6 distribution which allows you the same probabilities if you say "roll this or higher" or "roll this or lower". If you had a true integer mean (instead of 10.5) then you could use the true mean and base your number on that with the result you want. Rolling 4d6 and using the number 14, you get the behavior you want. As long as you are using 3d6 to roll to-hit though, if you change from roll-high to roll-low you cannot use the same offset without changing the odds of the roll no matter what offset you use.

Perhaps a better way of pointing this out is that under the current system with zero OCV and DCV you have a 62.5% chance of being hit (11 or lower to hit). If you don't change the constant but change the direction of the roll, you *don't* have a 62.5% chance of being missed. Instead you have roll 11 or higher to hit which is a 50% chance. If you were playing with 4d6 around 14, you really could change the direction of the roll with impunity but because it is 3d6 with a non-integral mean there is no integer value that you can ever pick that will behave the way you described.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you want and I understand the temptation. Run the numbers. 10 does not work for you any better than 11 does.


I'm probably being too simplistic here, but it looks to me like OCV+11-DCV-3d6=DCV+9-OCV-3d6, not, you understand, as a mathematical, algebraeically correct formula, but they are the same probability wise.

If 10 was the balance point, the <some constant> would be the same whichever way you rolled it. And the formula would work :)

[SteveZilla]

Ok, I finally got where you're coming from but I think that your math is in error. That's the point of looking at the distributions... SteveZilla made the same mistake in his post when he said

Quote:
OCV - Roll = DCV - 11

This is the same mechanically/mathematically as the original. But then I will change it so that it uses Roll Over instead of Under, and I get:

OCV + Roll = DCV + 11


Whoops! You're right. I pointed that out myself in an earlier post, then went and made the same mistake. :) That last formula should have been:

OCV + Roll = DCV + 10


This is why I very carefully said you want to use algebra of inequalities and understand probability distributions instead of just using algebra naively... Steve's math is ignoring the inequality...

Roll <= OCV +11 - DCV

Well, I wasn't exactly ignoring it, I was trying to keep it simple (for my benefit, mostly) by "understanding" that the formula was for "that number or lower", or when turned around "that number or higher". My failure was in not turning around the Roll at the same time as the rest of the fomula. I blame my work for fragmenting my reading & replying into a minute or two here & there.

[SteveZilla]

Over an 8 hour play session we might be talking about a whole 60 or 70 extra seconds spent doing math. During that extra minute someone might have been able to go get another Mt. Dew...


Do the Dew! :thumbup: Though I prefer Dr. Pepper myself.


IMO it's not about the amount of time saved. It's about reducing the amount of mental exertion/stress involved, thus making it a more enjoyable experience.

[steamteck]

Actually, no.

It shows the mechanic is so easy to automatically follow that they are not only able to use the dice simultaneously for a whole different purpose, but bored enough to gamble on the results ;)


Um, your sarcasm detector seems to be turned off.:idjit:

[archermoo]

Do the Dew! :thumbup: Though I prefer Dr. Pepper myself.


IMO it's not about the amount of time saved. It's about reducing the amount of mental exertion/stress involved, thus making it a more enjoyable experience.

To me at least (and for that matter anyone I've ever played Hero with) there is no appreciable "stress" involved in the current rolling mechanic. Focusing on "fixing" an area that is already for all intents and purposes without stress seems like much ado about nothing. But I suppose each to their own. :)

On the other hand, changing the rolling mechanic would in and of itself create a large quantity of extra mental exertion/stress for those who are already used to the current system at the very least, which in and of itself seems like a great reason to leave it as is. ;)

[Jaxom]

I'm probably being too simplistic here, but it looks to me like OCV+11-DCV-3d6=DCV+9-OCV-3d6, not, you understand, as a mathematical, algebraeically correct formula, but they are the same probability wise.

If 10 was the balance point, the <some constant> would be the same whichever way you rolled it. And the formula would work :)


Put in zeros. You're going to argue that 11 or less is the same odds as 9 or more. This is incorrect and hence so is the conclusion. It's why I keep saying that everyone should be checking their claims by putting in the zeros.