Rolling mechanic question

[Warp9]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

But in the example' date=' steamteck was looking for a target number of 8. . . [/quote']

 

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

[Warp9]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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

 

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

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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. 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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

And the "problem" with that is that "14 or less" on 4d6' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Initially I don't doubt it' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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. 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? ).

[Warp9]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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' date=' gives more options . Maybe its me just being old and unadaptable. 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.[/quote']

I guess it comes down to what works for you.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

First off' date=' it is not really a matter that people can [b']not[/b] 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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

.................Somehow' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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

[archermoo]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

First off' date=' it is not really a matter that people can [b']not[/b] 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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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).