OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

What seems more complicated to me without really making things any easier is presenting DCV+10 as DCV. It has the benefit of simplifying what is already the simplest case' date=' but it makes more complicated cases even more complex. With Markdoc's clarification of what he does I can see it being of limited use, but it seems like a lot of extra work to set up.[/quote']

Hmm. Yeah, I can agree there. I can see where it might be of very limited use for very, very simple games and inexperienced gamers, but that's a nipple I'd want to wean people off within a game or two.

[Tasha]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Sorry, it seems that of the several concepts floating around there is beginning to be overlap. On the roll high vs roll low I'll agree that rolling high isn't more difficult, though I don't agree that it is by nature any easier. It might be slightly easier for some people, it might be slightly more difficult for others. At which point to me it seems like a change just to make a change.

 

What seems more complicated to me without really making things any easier is presenting DCV+10 as DCV. It has the benefit of simplifying what is already the simplest case, but it makes more complicated cases even more complex. With Markdoc's clarification of what he does I can see it being of limited use, but it seems like a lot of extra work to set up.

 

And of note, what grates on me and seems a bit defensive on the flip side is the use of terms like "better" to describe what is just a different way of doing things.

 

Actually that's why in my posts I tried to differentiate between DCV and the Defensive target number. DCV + 10 is the Defensive Target Number or the Number someone needs to roll on 3d6 with their OCV added. In this case DCV is the number that one gets after all modifiers for combat maneuvers, combat effects (ie being stunned or blind), and skill levels are added. That is the number added to 10. Doing that final addition of 10 can be done either by the player or GM depending on what is easiest for the players and circumstances

 

Again to me, roll high is the most consistent and easiest for players to understand. One question that I ALWAYS have to deal with from Noob players (whether they have played D&D, or just board games like Monopoly and other classic board games) is the disconnect between rolling high for damage and rolling low to hit. People eventually get it and all, but at first they have a hard time getting their heads around the idea.

 

Obviously you have had different experiences in your years of gaming. That doesn't make my experiences any less relevant to the conversation. It looks like we have been playing for the same length of time, we have either run into players who are different in how the approach the game, we teach the game differently or we missed something in our observation of our learning players.

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Hmm. Yeah' date=' I can agree there. I can see where it might be of very limited use for very, very simple games and inexperienced gamers, but that's a nipple I'd want to wean people off within a game or two.[/quote']

 

That is exactly what it's for - and it takes very little time to wean people away from it since you can easily seperate it out. However, there are a lot of gamers who think "Hero is too math-intensive". Where did they get that idea? I talked with a guy (quite a competent GM) who was bitching that he had tried Hero once and had never gone back. His problem? "Combat was a mess. You had to add some numbers and subtract some numbers and the numbers kept changing" - he could never work out what he was supposed to do in combat. Now the guy wasn't an idiot. He was perfectly capable of running a decent game. I suspect he had a poor GM, and he might have been dropped into a game where everyone else knew the rules ... none of that matters. The way it was presented to him, turned him off and through him, turned off others. It's the result that matters.

 

It got me thinking about how best to present combat to new players (let's face it, that's the most math-intensive part of the game because even though you are only doing simple math, you do it repeatedly, in real-time). When some Hero players imply that only idiots can't do it, that doesn't help recruit new players.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Obviously you have had different experiences in your years of gaming. That doesn't make my experiences any less relevant to the conversation. It looks like we have been playing for the same length of time' date=' we have either run into players who are different in how the approach the game, we teach the game differently or we missed something in our observation of our learning players.[/quote']

 

Actually, I take the "Never met anyone for whom it was a problem" statements with a grain of salt. In our last discussion of this, on the 6E threads, we had a GM confidently state he'd never met anyone to whom it had been a problem - only to have one of his players chime in, that well, it had always been a problem for him. I think they mean that it hasn't been a big enough problem that it's become noticeably game-disrupting. And to be fair, that's been my experience too. I've played with many, many people who can use the standard method OK. Some of them have literally years of Hero experience. If you weren't actively looking for a problem, you might not notice that they actually use some time to work through the numbers (and often make small mistakes). And I have had the opportunity to observe that they become faster and more accurate, if shifted to "roll high", which tells me they had a maths problem - even if it wasn't preventing them from playing.

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

As an aside, I've never had a disconnect between roll high on damage and roll on everything else.

 

The way I explain it to players who might find it inconsistent is... simplistic, but hopefully memorable for it.

 

The numbers equal badness. The higher you roll, the more badness there is. When trying to succeed in executing a task, you want less badness. You want to succeed. When determining damage, you want to roll high because damage is pure unadulterated badness and that's just what you want to inflict on your opponent.

 

It sounds silly, I know.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Actually' date=' I take the "[i']Never met anyone for whom it was a problem[/i]" statements with a grain of salt. In our last discussion of this, on the 6E threads, we had a GM confidently state he'd never met anyone to whom it had been a problem - only to have one of his players chime in, that well, it had always been a problem for him. I think they mean that it hasn't been a big enough problem that it's become noticeably game-disrupting. And to be fair, that's been my experience too. I've played with many, many people who can use the standard method OK. Some of them have literally years of Hero experience. If you weren't actively looking for a problem, you might not notice that they actually use some time to work through the numbers (and often make small mistakes). And I have had the opportunity to observe that they become faster and more accurate, if shifted to "roll high", which tells me they had a maths problem - even if it wasn't preventing them from playing.

 

cheers, Mark

 

To expand on my statement, I will certainly say that using the straight formula out of the original book has certainly caused a lot of problems, which is why I don't use it as written. But the problems weren't of the "rolling low vs rolling high" sort. They were a matter of the formula not being a very good representation of what you need to actually do in combat. Reorganizing it to OCV + (11-roll) = DCV has cleared it up for everyone I've ever taught the system to. Specifically I give them the verbal description of: "Roll the 3d6. If it is above 11 subtract how far above it is from 11 from your OCV. If it is below 11, add how far below it is from 11 to your OCV. The result is the DCV that you hit." Which looks more complicated written than it sounds spoken. Even the math-phobes that I've taught haven't had a problem with it.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

As an aside, I've never had a disconnect between roll high on damage and roll on everything else.

 

The way I explain it to players who might find it inconsistent is... simplistic, but hopefully memorable for it.

 

The numbers equal badness. The higher you roll, the more badness there is. When trying to succeed in executing a task, you want less badness. You want to succeed. When determining damage, you want to roll high because damage is pure unadulterated badness and that's just what you want to inflict on your opponent.

 

It sounds silly, I know.

 

Presenting it as "Roll low to determine if you succeed, roll high to determine how successful you are" has pretty much always worked for me.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Obviously you have had different experiences in your years of gaming. That doesn't make my experiences any less relevant to the conversation. It looks like we have been playing for the same length of time, we have either run into players who are different in how the approach the game, we teach the game differently or we missed something in our observation of our learning players.

 

It could easily be as simple as geographic area. While we currently live in the same basic area, I've only lived here a short while and have only played with experienced Hero players out here.

 

As a math-phobe my current game would likely drive you nuts. In addition to using 3d10 instead of 3d6 for determination of success, in combat most of your defenses come from a "parry" skill. You get 1/2 your current roll with it as PD if you succeed. And 1/2 of that is resistant.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Actually' date=' I take the "[i']Never met anyone for whom it was a problem[/i]" statements with a grain of salt. In our last discussion of this, on the 6E threads, we had a GM confidently state he'd never met anyone to whom it had been a problem - only to have one of his players chime in, that well, it had always been a problem for him. I think they mean that it hasn't been a big enough problem that it's become noticeably game-disrupting. And to be fair, that's been my experience too. I've played with many, many people who can use the standard method OK. Some of them have literally years of Hero experience. If you weren't actively looking for a problem, you might not notice that they actually use some time to work through the numbers (and often make small mistakes). And I have had the opportunity to observe that they become faster and more accurate, if shifted to "roll high", which tells me they had a maths problem - even if it wasn't preventing them from playing.

 

cheers, Mark

 

In my high school game group, for several years I gamed with a guy for whom it was a problem. In Hero, even. Every time it came time for him to do something, he'd ask "What do I roll again?" And it was disruptive. It didn't seem to matter that we'd already explained it to him on his previous Phase, and the one before that. After I got back from four years in the Air Force, and gamed with him a few times after that, he seemed to have it down by then, and was even running games.

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Interesting aside. In 2nd Edition AD&D my group always played up the (optional, yeah right!) non-weapon proficiencies. Each skill had an ability score its roll was based on (e.g. roll under your dexterity to succeed). Each skill also had a modifier. For years and years and years we thought the modifier was to your ability score (e.g. if your character with Dex 14 used a skill that was based on Dex and had a -2 modifier, you'd want to roll equal to or under 14-2=12 to succeed, making the roll more difficult), but then one day one of us re-read the rules and discovered that in the Player's Handbook the modifiers are actually to the die roll itself, so a negative modifier is good and a positive modifier is bad (e.g. if your character with Dex 14 used a skill that was based on Dex and had a -2 modifier, you'd actually want to roll equal to or under 16 because 16-2=14, making the roll easier). Compounded to this was the fact that in the Dungeon Master's Guide, the sense of the modifier is reversed (our original interpretation was correct for things listed in the DMG, but we always used the PHB as our reference when building characters and using skills, so...).

 

Radio announcer advertising voice: Does that sound like your experience with the Hero System? Relax! Look no further! Our roll-high method is here to save the day! Simply roll 3d6 and add your modifier! It's the D&D-3E-equivalent to your Hero System woes!

[SteveZilla]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Reorganizing it to OCV + (11-roll) = DCV has cleared it up for everyone I've ever taught the system to.

 

Two things helped me get a grasp/feeling of the effect a roll has. My group stumbling across this re-working, and we also starting usign a character sheet with space for a pre-written table of rolls from 7-14. I think also some of the confusion was a carryover from D&D where some modifiers affected the target number, and others affected the die roll.

 

I could do the math, but it didn't really gel for me until I got a 'feel' for how the die roll affected my character's combat ability. Kinda like I have no idea what 29 degrees C feels like, despite being able to do the math to convert it to F. Until I get that same feeling, I would have to go though the conversion each and every time, before being able to say "Oh, that's warm/cold/hot/freezing".

[Tasha]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

It could easily be as simple as geographic area. While we currently live in the same basic area, I've only lived here a short while and have only played with experienced Hero players out here.

 

As a math-phobe my current game would likely drive you nuts. In addition to using 3d10 instead of 3d6 for determination of success, in combat most of your defenses come from a "parry" skill. You get 1/2 your current roll with it as PD if you succeed. And 1/2 of that is resistant.

 

I am not really sure that I would say that I am a math-phobe, I am more math challenged. It doesn't scare me and I can usually make my brain eventually spit out the right numbers.

[martyseilh]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

There is no "One Right Way", or even "One Easiest Way", because everybody learns and processes information differently. What is easiest for one is not easiest for all.

 

------------

Kangol Dazzle Herringbone 504 Dark Blue

[Manic Typist]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Presenting it as "Roll low to determine if you succeed' date=' roll high to determine how successful you are" has pretty much always worked for me. [/quote']

 

....that's it!

 

You made it sound all adult like.

[SteveZilla]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

There is no "One Right Way"' date=' or even "One Easiest Way", because everybody learns and processes information differently. What is easiest for one is not easiest for all.[/quote']

 

Wow! I must be experiencing Déjà vu! That sounds really, really familiar...

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

There is no "One Right Way"' date=' or even "One Easiest Way", because everybody learns and processes information differently. What is easiest for one is not easiest for all.[/quote']

Ahh...but that is an argument against me telling you how you should roll, and I haven't heard anyone here telling you how you (or any other individual) should do things. While no one can say with any definitive certainty what is easier for any given individual (or group, even), we can look at what kind of predispositions there are and what has a tendency to be easier for people in general. That's where the disconnect over the term "objective" came in earlier. For example, exceptions do not necessarily mean you cannot treat things statistically and deal with, "the norm."

 

Unfortunately, one of the big considerations some of us have to deal with is selling the system (figuratively, for the most part), and selling it well and thoroughly enough to attract players who are already hooked on other game systems. So when faced with the preconceived notion that, "Hero is too complex; I don't want to have to have a Ph.D. just to sit around the table and have fun gaming," we look for ways--even very small ways--to make things easier and more familiar to people who aren't used to gaming with Hero. So, is 3d6+OCV>=10+DCV easier for you? Maybe not. But you might have a slightly better chance of hooking the next D&D player who comes by your table and tries it out if you go with it. It's certainly been successful for me, even though I couldn't give a rat's ass which way I roll and count the dice in my own hands.