Rolling mechanic question

[Warp9]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

I take back my statement about people.

 

That's so very very very sad.

 

[SteveZilla]

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.

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Well' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Wow: a school that served shots!

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

That's not what I said or even implied' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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".

 

I ridicule you one more time!

[SteveZilla]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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?

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

You make it sound like someone actually thought this through. I don't think so' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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

 

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 -

 

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

 

Roll >= 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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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?

 

 

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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".

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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.

 

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

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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 -

 

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

 

Roll >= 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 would be the same whichever way you rolled it. And the formula would work

[SteveZilla]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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! 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.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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.

[archermoo]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

Do the Dew! 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]

Re: Rolling mechanic question

 

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 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.