Quote from: Lunamancer;898933Bell curve, schmell curve.

Tell me, planes have planned arrival and departure times. Of course, the world is an imperfect place, so the actual times often vary from the scheduled time.

So, this would be best modeled as a bell curve, right?

Wrong.

It would probably for better with the MTTD roll we talked about. Or a gamma distribution maybe? Just thinking out loud. I'd hive to check into this. But yes it would be open ended and skewed to the lower values.

Quote from: Lunamancer;898933Furthermore, Maarzan raises the example of archery and correctly notes that the arrow has to land somewhere, so even the beginner has a chance at hitting the bullseye.

Yup, and the best of the best still have a chance of hitting someone in the audience or a cameraman. You're putting all misses into a single 60% range without a means to reference complete fuck ups.

Now, the absence of skilled aiming doesn't mean absence of aiming. Not everything is equiprobable in "the general direction". I for example tend to fire low left, so my rounds hit in a nice cluster a bit left and a bit low. Even when I had no experience the bullseye wasn't a free for all area. There was a pattern, just of a bit off and spread. As I got better I got a better score because my aim improved and I could better anticipate the weapon's behaviour. When I changed handguns my aim once again took a hit ( no pun intended). The weight and grip felt different and I was again a bit off.

So I went from unskilled, to skilled with the SIG, to experienced with the SIG, and down to skilled with the Glock while still keeping experienced with the SIG. So I can say I'm skilled with handguns and experienced with Sig and Glock. Not just handgun 2.

I also don't agree that you need a traditional binary, linear hit roll with a damage roll to determine degree of success. I don't handle damage that way in the game. The degree of success in the roll determines hit location which is the main contributor to damage. Dice are rolled for the variability in the trajectory of the projectile. So if my character needs a 4 to hit and I get a 14, my target is fucked  up. The damage roll will only determine if it's just fucked up or totally fucked up. In the game you can't get an awesome attack roll that turns out too be a flesh wound.

With a skill number there comes in every non-botched design a scale and a resolution system that explicitly describes how these values will interact with your characters actions.

With named but unvalued elements some of them habe an unmistakable meaning in the game world, but to may leave the meaning of this element to the reader, asuming because the writer has a fixed idea of the meaning of that label that everyone else with "common sense" will have the same idea.

Quote from: Saurondor;899012Yup, and the best of the best still have a chance of hitting someone in the audience or a cameraman. You're putting all misses into a single 60% range without a means to reference complete fuck ups.

Um, no on both counts. Though this does punctuate a highly problematic area of your thinking, which goes to the heart qualitative vs quantitative factors in the resolution system.

You're wrong that it lumps all misses into the 60% range. Based on the facts I presented, where there is a target with three concentric rings surrounding a bullseye and nothing else, then a miss is a miss is a miss, and the 60% range accurately covers every single possibility. If you want to include in the field of vision a child eating an icecream cone that takes up about twice the angular area relative to the bullseye from the perspective of the unskilled archer, then that is a new fact, and based on the new set of facts, using the exact same consistent method I described, that would be 58% chance of missing with a 2% chance of hitting the child. For the extremely anal retentive, the 2% can be further broken down to 1.99% chance of hitting the child with a 0.01% chance of hitting the ice cream.

It's not too often competitive archery comes up in my games. However, firing into a crowd or a melee does. If you have an allies fighting three enemies and you try to fire into that shit, then yeah, suddenly you have a chance for something really bad to happen, like hitting your ally. So, back to the method. The 4 bodies collectively are substantially larger than a target. So maybe total miss for the unskilled drops to 20%. This leaves 80% where each person is equally likely to be hit, so 20% bad guy 1, 20% bad guy 2, 20% bad guy 3, and 20% good guy. Then mask it with the 60 skill guy with the 20 point range bonus, but the range bonus is countered with a -20 moving target bonus. The final crunched numbers are:
8% hit an ally (aka: fumble), 8% complete miss, 16% hit other bad guy (aka: "something else"), 68% hit your intended target

If there had been one fewer enemy and one additional ally, this increases the odds of your allies taking on friendly fire. But do I just apply a generic "probability soup" style negative modifier? No. The odds of a "fumble" go up to 16%, the odds of "something else" drop to 8%. Note how this is qualitatively different from simply applying a 5% penalty to the percentile roll.


And this brings me to why you're wrong on the first count. There are certain safety measures that can be taken in a firing range that preclude the idiotic notion of a "critical fumble" that strikes an audience member or a camera man. Much like the presence or absence of the child in the field of vision is handled perfectly with the method presented, so too can reasonable precautions be handled to eliminate the odds of a disastrous failure. Which makes a key central point. A generic, abstract bell curve that includes ridiculous possibilities, including those that were specifically safeguarded against, is not a good idea, no matter how much you get off of "non-binary mechanics." It certainly is not a "simulationist" style rule, for the GM to have to really stretch to make some stupid shit up bad to happen just because the dice said something especially bad happens.

QuoteNow, the absence of skilled aiming doesn't mean absence of aiming. Not everything is equiprobable in "the general direction".

This is irrelevant. If it were a fact to be considered, it would have been accounted for. There is nothing in the method I proscribed that prohibits it. Some examples are just stripped down for simplicity. What I presented does not hinge on any particular fact pattern to be true. It retains generality.

QuoteI also don't agree that you need a traditional binary, linear hit roll with a damage roll to determine degree of success.

Not sure who you're not in agreement with. I never said you need a traditional binary anything. The point is that when you consider successive factors or interactions, the outcome, the final probability distribution is always going to be a curve. It doesn't matter what you start with. You don't need "curve mechanics" to replicate observations in nature. Curves aren't found in the real world because God likes 3d6 better than 1d20. They're simply inevitable. So the type of mechanic you use, linear or bell curve, has absolutely shit to do with being "realistic" and everything to do with arbitrary aesthetics.

Moreover, there is a difference between probability of a number coming up on the dice mechanic, P(x) and the effect of a number coming up on the dice mechanic, F(x). P(x) can be bell curved. F(x) will usually not resemble any sort of curve. And F(x) is the only thing that really counts.

Quote from: Maarzan;898752There are 2 elements I would like to know there.

The first one is about how these lables to health flow back into the resolution. Even your % value doesn´t tell how it influences for example a stealth roll or an attack.

And if these labels influence the resolution I would like if there are any rules how theses label get chosen or how far someone can go with finding labels to wring them for boni.

I've answered these both already. The effect depends on situation. How they're chosen depends on context. Could someone go finding labels to get a bonus somewhere? Of course. I've made that abundantly clear. But the bonus is only at certain things. Penalties at others. There thus is no incentive to drive players to look for bonuses. The incentive is to drive players to play the characters they want to play.

QuoteThere we are decidedly of different opinions. Language is chronically short on precission.

You can say that, but you'd be mistaken. You didn't respond to my post with a string of numbers or mathematical symbols. You responded in words. What you say your opinion is is at odds with what you actually believe the case to be as evidenced by your actions. Sorry. You're not only wrong in general. You're strangely misinformed even about your own opinion and beliefs on this matter.

When it comes to precision of language vs. precision of numbers? Numbers win hands down. I mean, how long is this thread again? How many words have been argued over? Whereas if this thread had been along the lines of "Hey guys! 7 + 9 = 16!" it probably only would have been debated for about 20 pages.

Words CAN be precise, but I think that when it comes to simulation and RPGs, numbers are where the precision comes into play. What does it mean if the GM says, "the assassin's dagger slashes your arm"? Opinions will differ. But we all know what "take 2 hp of damage" means.

Not that words don't have their own strengths, obviously. For instance, mathematical symbols aren't typically the substance of nonmathematical conversation. But then it would be hard (impossible to my mind) to run a simulation without underlying math.

Oh, and that bit about how labels effect resolution being contextual? That's called GM fiat. Authoring. I mean how often is context in a TTRPG fully defined? Particularly outside combat? And WHO has the authority to define said context in the first place?

Quote from: Manzanaro;899084Oh, and that bit about how labels effect resolution being contextual? That's called GM fiat. Authoring. I mean how often is context in a TTRPG fully defined? Particularly outside combat? And WHO has the authority to define said context in the first place?

Dude. Seriously. Are you fucking retarded?

If you were an honest person trying to engage in conversation and not an asshole, it probably would have occurred to you that GM fiat can be exercised by subtraction as well as by addition. By ignoring things. Not just by making things up. Let me also re-state from many, many pages ago, not all forms of authoring are fiat. There are PLENTY of things the game specifically allows you to do. As we discussed not that long ago, you are allowed to "author" your Wish when using a wish spell. It's not fiat. It's exactly what the fucking rules tell you to do. So. Recap. Not all instances of GM fiat involve authoring. Not all instances of authoring involve GM fiat. GM fiat =/= Authoring. The two words are not synonymous. They have nothing to fucking do with one another. So wisen the fuck up. And heed the bolded words. GM fiat can be ignoring things. Got it?

Now that's cleared up, the rest is also directed at Marzaan.

I used the example earlier of a 6 foot guy vs a 4 foot guy, both standing behind a 3 foot stone wall. There are NO rules that say the 4 foot guy is any harder to hit than the 6 foot guy. Players have free reign in writing these descriptions (so long as it is consistent with the parameters of the race and other game stats).

The 6 foot guy has 50% cover. The 4 foot guy has 75% cover. I found this out by doing math. The rules didn't tell me math works. They also didn't tell me gravity works in the game. No honest person screams fiat when the GM claims both math and gravity work. That's because the rules were written for humans. Not computers. Not forum trolls. Just regular people who want to play a fucking game and can figure out stuff like gravity and math.

You know what the rules DO cover, though? Defensive benefits of cover according to the percentage of cover one has. Fancy that. And it looks like 50% cover in D&D is good for a +4 AC bonus, whereas 75% cover is good for a +7 AC bonus.

So 3 foot wall is good for 4 points of AC, and little dude is 3 points harder to hit that big dude, right?

No. It's situ-fucking-ational.

A 12 foot giant standing behind the 3 foot wall only has 25% cover, for a +2 bonus. So much for the +4 wall bonus. Also, a 6 inch wall provides no cover for either 6' guy or 4' guy. No bonus at all. Hey, they're actually equally hard to hit. And a 10 foot wall provides each with 100% cover. Neither can be hit, now. Again, equal.

None of this is fiat. All of it is straight up by the book. In no event is character height considered a game stat. It's something that's part of their description. Just like the wall doesn't provide an inherent AC bonus. It's just part of the description. But you know what? Description meets description can produce mechanical effect. Again, this is by-the-fucking-book.

So what now? Ready to admit you're too busy trying to prove everyone else wrong that you forgot about completely obvious shit that happens all the fucking time that is made explicit in the fucking rules? Ready to man up and admit you're wrong. That all of your reasoning goes out the fucking window. That your conclusions upon which you base your opinions are total nonsense?


How about more examples?

Gee. Let's see. Old school player's handbook. Oh, the pike is over 10' long? Hmm. Old school dungeon map. Oh, I'm in a 5' corridor. Marching order established. Wandering monster check. Oh no, monsters attack the rear of the party. Tell me which of these aren't covered explicitly by the book? Oh? This is all 100% by the book? Great!

Okay, I just turn around and poke at them with my pike. There are no mechanics for the maneuverability of pikes in narrow corridors. No rule in the books. But you know what? The rule book DID bother to mention that the pike is 10+ fucking feet long. And the adventure took the time, both in graphical form on the map, and in verbal form in the flavor text, to specify the corridor is only 5 feet wide (with 8 foot rounded ceilings).

You could ignore these facts if you want. But then you'd be engaged in fiat-by-subtraction. There's just no way you can claim to be playing "by the book" when you get to pick and choose which parts you follow all willy nilly.

And it matters. Oh, the player with the pike might complain. "Oh, you're screwing me over. There's nothing in the book that says I can't use my pike!"

On the other hand, if you cave to the crybaby, the player next to him wielding the hand axe might add a legit gripe. "Hey, I chose to go with this nerfed-damage weapon because I thought it was illogical to use the pike in such a narrow space. If I'd known that wouldn't matter, I would have chosen the pike, too!"

This is what real GMs do. They aren't a bunch of forum pussies who hide behind theory and brainlessly claim, "just speaking my opinion dude."

They make judgment calls before groups of real people. And sometimes no matter what they decide, someone will bawl their eyes out. So real GMs have to point to real justifications for their judgment calls that appeal to the real sensibilities of real people. And guess what your opinion is worth to people who aren't you?

When something happens because the GM said it does that is the GM authoring things into the game. He does this because he has fiat. Yes players also have fiat in limited areas, typically equivalent to what their character's say and do (or attempt to do).

For someone who believes in the precision of language, you have a very limited grasp of nuance and meaning. And "are you fucking retarded" coming from the guy with the comprehension fail? That just makes me suspect you are emotionally unbalanced, Lunamancer.

And "fiat" doesn't mean "in defiance of the rules". A lot of games are very explicit about the GM having fiat. That is what it means when the rules say "the GM is always right". Sadly, however much you may GM, this does not hold true in real life.

And let me add: I agree that if you have stated that a wall is 4 foot tall than a 2' man can stand behind it in full cover (and similar examples) and that this does not constitute fiat. Note that those are numerical descriptions and not mere text labels as the question from Maarzan was pretty clearly meant to address. But what happens when all you have said is "a low stone wall surrounds the building" but have not given nor recorded the exact height and now the players want to know? You make it up on the spot. You author it. You establish it spontaneously based on your own personal criteria.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899051You're wrong that it lumps all misses into the 60% range. Based on the facts I presented, where there is a target with three concentric rings surrounding a bullseye and nothing else, then a miss is a miss is a miss, and the 60% range accurately covers every single possibility.

So it doesn't lump all misses into the 60% range, but a miss is a miss and the 60% covers every single possibility. So it covers every single possibility, but doesn't lump all misses into the 60% range. So there must be misses that are not lumped but somehow aren't covered by that which covers every single possibility.  Interesting.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899051This is irrelevant. If it were a fact to be considered, it would have been accounted for. There is nothing in the method I proscribed that prohibits it. Some examples are just stripped down for simplicity. What I presented does not hinge on any particular fact pattern to be true. It retains generality.

Yes. I'm accounting for it thus making it relevant.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899051Not sure who you're not in agreement with. I never said you need a traditional binary anything.

Really? You said:

QuoteFrom there, all you need is a traditional, binary, linear hit roll paired with a damage roll which determines degree of success.

I guess you referred to traditional, binary, linear hit rolls that are similar to the misses that are misses because misses are misses just like traditional, binary, linear hit rolls are traditional, binary, linear hit rolls. But these traditional, binary, linear hit rolls aren't traditional binary anything just like those misses that aren't the ones lumped into a 60% range in spite of the 60% range covering every single possibility of a miss.

Quote from: Manzanaro;899100When something happens because the GM said it does that is the GM authoring things into the game.

Define "because".

Did my fighter hit the orc? Well, the DM said he did. So did I hit "because" the DM said so? Well, yeah, that's part of it. But how did the DM arrive at this decision? Well, he looked at the dice rolls, looked up my hit tables, bonuses, orc's AC, consulted the rules. Still fiat?

Whether or not the GM says so is irrelevant. The word fiat means "an arbitrary order." Arbitrary. Speaks to HOW the GM makes the decision. THAT is what's relevant. That and that alone makes the difference. It's NOT because the GM says so. It's NOT authoring. These words just don't mean what you think they mean.

QuoteHe does this because he has fiat. Yes players also have fiat in limited areas, typically equivalent to what their character's say and do (or attempt to do).

They "have" fiat? They have "a formal proposition" or "a decree" or "an arbitrary order." How do they have them? The way this parses, saying someone "has" fiat means they're taking orders. When someone "uses" fiat, they are giving them. So, no, GMs don't "have" fiat.

QuoteFor someone who believes in the precision of language, you have a very limited grasp of nuance and meaning.

When I say X, and you say I'm wrong, Y must be false because X is true. Then I'm justified in questioning your mental capacity. Regardless of what nuance may or may not be contained in the variables X or Y.

QuoteAnd "are you fucking retarded" coming from the guy with the comprehension fail?

No. Are you retarded was DIRECTED at the guy(s) with the comprehension fail.

QuoteThat just makes me suspect you are emotionally unbalanced, Lunamancer.

It wouldn't be the first time you were completely wrong or said something monumentally stupid. Probably won't be the last.

QuoteAnd let me add: I agree that if you have stated that a wall is 4 foot tall than a 2' man can stand behind it in full cover (and similar examples) and that this does not constitute fiat. Note that those are numerical descriptions and not mere text labels as the question from Maarzan was pretty clearly meant to address.

All I did was repeat the EXACT example Maarzan was replying to. Thus the X I originally said to which you replied I was wrong. Proving that the comprehension fail was on your part all along. And here, you even acknowledged the fail. You just haven't been man enough to admit you're wrong, so you accuse others of being emotionally unbalanced.

QuoteBut what happens when all you have said is "a low stone wall surrounds the building" but have not given nor recorded the exact height and now the players want to know? You make it up on the spot. You author it. You establish it spontaneously based on your own personal criteria.

Bears riding unicycles playing violins. Can't say I'm shocked that an individual demonstrating dishonesty time and time again in this thread would ask a question rigged to never accept truth as an answer.

But even though you are arguing against a point I never made, let me show why even on that count you have shit for brains.

Why are you so certain a 2 foot man standing behind a 4 foot wall has complete cover? Is it because 2 < 4? Because that's true regardless. Even if it's a 12 foot giant standing behind a 4 foot wall, 2 is still less than 4. It's irrelevant.

No. What's salient is that the height of the man is less than the height of the wall. Whether that's expressed with numbers, words, or pictures, it's equally true.

Quote from: Saurondor;899105So it doesn't lump all misses into the 60% range, but a miss is a miss and the 60% covers every single possibility. So it covers every single possibility, but doesn't lump all misses into the 60% range. So there must be misses that are not lumped but somehow aren't covered by that which covers every single possibility.  Interesting.

Okay, back to being dishonest, are you?

QuoteYes. I'm accounting for it thus making it relevant.

Okay, if you're accounting for it, I go back and include it and come up with different calculations. So it's irrelevant that you criticized the calculations you criticized then.

Either your assumption is irrelevant, or your criticism of the conclusion is irrelevant. Pick one.

QuoteReally? You said:

Yes. Read my exact words that you just quoted. "all you need is..." as in "this is sufficient" At NO point did I say "this is necessary".

I didn't realize I was giving you English lessons today.

"Words are just as precise as numbers," says the genius that demands an English lesson every time he wants to obfuscate. Priceless.

"Because" means "as caused by". Crazy stuff, huh wordmaster? So did the GM cause the PC to hit the orc? Well let's see. Was there a rule of simulation that was followed that resulted in the orc being hit? Than following rules of simulation was the cause. Or did the GM simply state that the PC hit, possibly over riding the rules of simulation? Than yep, he sure as fuck caused that imaginary outcome by authoring it.

"Fiat" means a decree which is arbitrary and it is "arbitrary" in the sense that it need not be justified.

Anything else in your post besides demands to be instructed in English and logic? Insults, more insults... Blah blah blah... Oh you pretend Maarzan was asking about walls, when he was asking, in the post you were responding to, about the labels for health levels, and how UNQUANTIFIED labels in general would be used to determine outcomes.

You then go on to show an apparent lack of understanding about the basic relationships of numericly expressed values. We can't establish a height relationship unless we know the heights of the things involved. If one or more of these heights is PREVIOUSLY UNDEFINED than that relationship is going to need to be ARBITRARILY DECREED.

Basically just that same tired brand of Lunamancer venom/stupidity all the way through.

Quote from: Lunamancer;899123Okay, back to being dishonest, are you?

Never stopped being dishonest! But I prefer to enjoy substantiated dishonesty than unsubstantiated pompous honesty. At least my dishonesty is backed and though out. I try to be thoroughly dishonest. You can count on that if I bullshit you, it's going to be solid, well thought out bullshit, to the best of my bullshitting abilities. I even try my best to graph my bullshit so it's clear just how much bullshit it really is.

By the way, the non simpleton definition of fiat is: "a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort".

Seems applicable to me. And when I say someone has fiat, I mean they have right of fiat over the imaginary gamespace. I think this is acceptable shorthand, easily understood by anyone not primarily interested in obfuscation of my meaning as a last resort debating technique.

Quote from: Manzanaro;899084When it comes to precision of language vs. precision of numbers? Numbers win hands down. I mean, how long is this thread again? How many words have been argued over? Whereas if this thread had been along the lines of "Hey guys! 7 + 9 = 16!" it probably only would have been debated for about 20 pages.

Words CAN be precise, but I think that when it comes to simulation and RPGs, numbers are where the precision comes into play. What does it mean if the GM says, "the assassin's dagger slashes your arm"? Opinions will differ. But we all know what "take 2 hp of damage" means.

Not that words don't have their own strengths, obviously. For instance, mathematical symbols aren't typically the substance of nonmathematical conversation. But then it would be hard (impossible to my mind) to run a simulation without underlying math.

Oh, and that bit about how labels effect resolution being contextual? That's called GM fiat. Authoring. I mean how often is context in a TTRPG fully defined? Particularly outside combat? And WHO has the authority to define said context in the first place?

Allow me to coin the term "fiat by proxy". I'm sure people in general know what having one's arm slashed means, but not so much 2 HP. We as players "may think we know" what 2HP means. You may think you "know", but that's within the context of your game and learned out of the experience of playing it. You've created your own personal reality of what slashed arm means. Slashed arm means cut skin, infection, cut muscle, even possibly a tendon or vein. Bad stuff. Not just 2 HP.

Let's travel back in time to a point prior to hit points. Someone comes around and starts talking about this idea of hit points. It gets implemented and creates this "combat context" which in turn creates this "combat reality" in which my PC can take 2HP of damage, get its arm slashed and still keep on as if nothing happened. This someone created this system out of GM fiat. The system was authored and has a doubtful representation of reality. This someone thought it was cool, or kinda worked within the boundaries of the values chosen, whatever. It's not realistic, it's not what one would expect a slashed arm to be. Just some damage values for a cut arm. That's what that person who then wrote down the rules thought. A hit, two points of damage and that's it.

Now you come along, you read the rules, exclaim to yourself "this is really cool, let's play it!". So in your game what happens is that at some point a PC gets hit and "the assassin's dagger slashes its arm". Instead of listening to the opinions of the players you reproduce the "rules as is", rules which you now seem to consider "immaculate" and exclaim "oh, this is so good, unlike all the other authored stuff, 2HP is precise unlike all the other verbal stuff".

It's fiat by proxy. You think it's better. Somehow purer than "authoring". You claim you're not authoring because your following a procedure written down by another. It's better, it's purer, because you're not pulling it out of your ass; you're just following someone else's procedure who could have very well pulled it out of their ass.

How is the crap somebody else developed and wrote on paper somehow better than the crap I develop right here and now at my gaming table? Why is the game designers shit "simulation" and my shit "authored"?

We know what having one's arm slashed means? Okay. How deep is the slash? How badly is it bleeding? There is a great deal I don't know without further question.

When a GM tells me I take 2 hp? I have no further need for clarification.

Just skimmed the rest, but when you infer that I am making value judgements about one thing being "better" or "purer" than another? You are way off base and back in "unfounded Saurondor extrapolation land" again, and I am done following you into that fog enshrouded wilderland.

The difference between simulation and narration isn't a question of one being better than the other. Nor is it a question of "realism". I can describe the most realistic arm injury in the history of narrative, but that still won't make that imaginary injury a product of rules of simulation. If you still have not parsed the difference, further discussion with you is a complete waste of time.